Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. There is little doubt that our immigration system is broken and needs reform. Yet, we can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. The proposed legislation would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

When I first introduced my bill last September, I mentioned that it represents countless hours of conversation and feedback from my constituents. This bill is a common-sense approach on how best to enforce and tighten-up our immigration laws.

Of course, securing the actual physical border should remain our top priority. However, we cannot ignore the residual problems caused by a porous border. The weakness of a porous border has been experienced by communities across the country--draining all facets of local resources, including public safety, welfare programs, and medical assistance.

By no means is the proposed legislation intended to be a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Rather, it is focused on enforcement and accountability of existing immigration laws and programs. There is much that remains to be done before we can tackle comprehensive immigration reform. But this bill is the next step toward strengthening our immigration laws.

The Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act will curb identity theft and techniques that have been exploited by the illegal alien community; stop the abuse by this administration from granting mass parole or deferral to illegal aliens; help prevent Mexican drug cartels from growing marijuana in our national parks and on our public lands; and prevent so-called sanctuary cities by requiring law enforcement agencies that are selected and enrolled in the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs to fully comply with the established requirements.

There is a need for accurate accounting to track the flow of federal and state welfare dollars given to illegal aliens and ensure that U.S. citizens are the first to receive Federal health benefits. Additionally, my bill would rectify a gaping hole in our visa system by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to create a mandatory visa exit procedure that would track the departure of our foreign visitors to the United States; provide that gang members will be ineligible to receive a visa for travel to our country; and direct the State Department to examine the Diversity Visa program, which in the past has been wrought with fraud and abuse.

I do not think anyone could disagree with the substance of the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. It touches on some of the more overlooked, but critical areas of our broken immigration system. Moreover, I believe these steps can be enacted in a bipartisan fashion without creating a host of new programs and revenue streams. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this bill forward.

Mr. President, today Chairman Baucus filed an original bill and an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, bill currently being considered by the Senate. Both of these items are identical. They reflect the revenue title to the FAA bill that was reported by the Finance Committee last Tuesday. I am hopeful that this heralds the passage of long-term FAA reauthorization and represents a break with our ongoing pattern of funding the FAA with short-term extensions of current law.

In most respects the Finance Committee product reflects the FAA bill that was passed unanimously last year with 93 votes. However, there is a very important difference. Thanks to an amendment filed by Senator Coburn, who is a new member of the Finance Committee, only 90 percent of forecasted revenues to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for a given year will be spent. Over the past several years the uncommitted cash balance remaining in the trust fund has steadily decreased because actual revenues have fallen short of forecast revenues. Since recipients of trust fund revenues expect to be paid in real dollars and not forecasted dollars, it makes sense to make sure the trust fund contains actual dollars. By allowing only 90 percent of forecast trust fund revenues to be spent, we are putting in place a 10 percent cushion to guard against the frequent occurrence that actual trust fund revenues will fall short of projected revenues.

The Finance Committee product also increases the amount general aviation and fractional aircraft will pay for each gallon of jet fuel they use. These increases will impact neither commercial airlines nor passengers of commercial airlines. The cost of fuel for commercial aviation is not changed at all by the Finance Committee product. What makes the increases of the costs borne by the general aviation and fractional communities unique is that both groups are active supporters of these increases. As these letters explain, the increases in the cost of jet fuel are supported because the proceeds will help our airport and airway system transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. NextGen is the satellite-based air traffic control system that is slated to replace our current radar-based system. The transition to NextGen is expected to reduce inefficiencies within and enhance the benefits of our airport and airway system.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Baucus and the other Members of the Finance Committee for their work on the revenue title to the FAA bill, and I hope for the rapid completion of FAA reauthorization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, just over 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States. It is hard to believe that three decades have passed since he stood in front of this Capitol, just yards away, and announced to this Nation and the world that America's moment had not passed. It is hard to think that we have been without him now for over 6 years. I think of him and his wonderful, lovely wife Nancy quite often. I knew them both very well. I know Nancy very well to this day. She is a terrific human being, as was he.

One of my first campaign trips for Ronald Reagan was with Nancy, and I can tell my colleagues there never was a stronger advocate for her husband.

As a man, he had the rare combination of good humor and a commitment to principle. As the leader of his party and as President, he reminded us of the need for constant recommitment to our constitutional ideas, and as a couple Ron and Nancy were a pair for the ages. If there was any doubt, my colleagues have confirmed today in their tributes to President Reagan on the centennial of his birth that Ronald Reagan might have passed on, but he is most certainly not forgotten--not by a long shot.

When Reagan was President, he inspired great reactions from both parties. I can attest, particularly with respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that not all of those reactions were positive. Yet today's bipartisan celebration of President Reagan's legacy shows that he has become as much a part of the American story as his greatest predecessors in office.

Like other great men before him, Ronald Reagan seemed to embody the times during which he lived. The man himself, his personal story, in many ways personified America's 20th century.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was born in the Midwest and became a westerner, moving to California like so many other of his fellow Americans. The country he grew up in looked very different from our own today. As Michael Barone recently reminded us in an article in the Claremont Review of Books, when America entered the Second World War, one-quarter of Americans still lived on farms, and half of those were either without electricity or only recently acquired electricity.

America's population was at the same time both more diffuse and more concentrated than it is today. America's nonrural population was clustered in a few great cities. Again, as Barone explained, at the outbreak of the Second World War, 2 percent of all Americans lived in Brooklyn, NY. America in the 20th century became a less rural, less agricultural nation. Yet instead of concentrating in existing urban centers, new communities grew and suburbs expanded.

That was the story of Ronald Reagan, who was born in tiny Tampico, IL, population 772 as of the 2000 census, and came to the world's attention in California, home of suburban life and the American highway. He became a Californian through and through. He loved his ranch, and he loved being on the back of a horse. The large landscapes of California and of the entire West suggested the boundless opportunity that is afforded those who work hard in this country. It was there that Ronald Reagan found his professional and political success. It was where he met Nancy and raised his family, and it is where he was finally laid to rest.

Ronald Reagan did not have it easy. As he put it, he did not grow up on the wrong side of the tracks. But he could hear the train. He lived through the Great Depression. Yet like countless Americans before and after him, with dogged determination and a good deal of pluck, he succeeded.

At a time when college was a luxury, Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College. He went on to have a successful career in radio as a sportscaster. But that was not enough, so he moved to Hollywood where he became an actor. Of all the roles Ronald Reagan would play, we eventually identified him most closely with the character of George Gipp in ``Knute Rockne: All American.'' It should come as little surprise that we would associate a good Irishman such as Ronald Reagan with a movie about Notre Dame and the Fighting Irish.

When George Gipp first appears on screen, Knute Rockne, the head coach of the Irish, is at his wit's end with his team. Seeing Gipp--who was not a member of the team--lying around, Rockne asked him if he could go in and run the ball against the varsity. Reagan's Gipp responded, with an Irish twinkle in his eye: How far? Naturally, he ran down the field, scored a touchdown, and took his place in Notre Dame lore.

For Ronald Reagan, like George Gipp, there was no challenge too big. It is a good thing he thought that way because he faced plenty of obstacles. With the outbreak of World War II, his promising acting career was put on hold. Yet he would go on to serve as President of the Screen Actors Guild,

and later he worked in television as the host of ``General Electric Theater.'' It was that association with General Electric that sent Reagan on his path toward the Presidency.

Going on what he called the ``mashed potato circuit,'' he spoke across the country to the thousands of GE employees, giving what would later be called ``The Speech.'' Giving these after dinner remarks, Reagan honed his thoughts about freedom, the size of government, and the Soviet menace.

In 1964, on the eve of the Presidential election, he would deliver that speech to the Nation. Senator Barry Goldwater went on to lose that election in an epic landslide.

Today we know that conservatives might have lost that battle, but they would ultimately win the war.

A week before the election, Ronald Reagan delivered a taped address-- ``A Time for Choosing''--on Goldwater's behalf. He spoke as a partisan for liberty, and he urged his fellow Americans to join him in that struggle. He concluded his remarks telling a national television audience:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve

for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth.

This speech resonated with the American people. It raised $8 million for Goldwater, an astronomical sum at the time. More importantly, it made Ronald Reagan a formidable presence on the political scene.

I knew Barry Goldwater. I knew him well. When I ran for the Senate, he was one of two people I came to visit in Washington just to get some advice. I admired him so much, and it was a privilege to serve with him. The other one was Chuck Grassley who was then in the House, and I count him as one of my dearest friends on Earth.

Against the odds and conventional wisdom, Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California in 1966. The California establishment made the mistake of underestimating this actor from the Midwest, and he went on to beat his more liberal primary opponent and the popular incumbent Governor.

Underestimating Reagan was a mistake that the Washington establishment would make time and again when he arrived there 14 years later. They never seemed to understand what was so obvious to President Reagan.

For all of the superficial differences, Americans of his age were not so different than the generation that founded this Nation, fought the Civil War, worked through the Great Depression, and struggled for civil rights. In the end, Americans of today are committed to the same principles of liberty and equality that animated the authors of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

This shared commitment to our founding principles served him well, because he took office at a time of great uncertainty, a time not unlike our own. A combination of factors seemed to be putting the aspirations of Americans out of reach.

To be blunt, America was on its heels. The prime interest rate was 15 percent. Inflation was 12\1/2\ percent. And civilian unemployment was at 7 percent. Government regulations and tax rates were smothering American innovation, and with it the American dream. And abroad the picture was just as grim. An imperialist Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan, and was supporting revolutionary movements across the globe. The American hostages had not yet been freed from Iran.

Yet when Ronald Reagan left office 8 years later, he had left his mark. According to his biographer, Lou Cannon, when he came into office, there were 4,414 individual tax returns with an adjusted gross income of more than $1 million. By 1987, fueled by tax cuts, the breaking of inflation, and explosive economic growth, there were 34,944 such returns. When he entered the White House, only 1 in 6 Americans owned a microwave, and VCRs were a luxury for the wealthy. By the time he left office, these were common household goods. He helped to restore our understanding of a limited judiciary that respects the traditions of the American people and their elected representatives. And he restored faith in our men and women in uniform.

Just before he left office, President Reagan reviewed the troops at Andrews Air Force Base one last time. During that visit, he said that serving as commander-in-chief was ``the most sacred, most important task of the presidency.''

Barely five years after America left South Vietnam, Reagan spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention and reminded America that Vietnam had been a ``noble cause.'' The rush to ``blame America first'' in our conflict with totalitarian regimes, and the days of holding our military men and women in low esteem, came to an end with the Reagan Presidency. And though his greatest achievement--the collapse of the Soviet Empire--would occur on his successor's watch--the writing was on the wall by the time Ronald Reagan left office. His recommitment to freedom during our twilight struggle with what was truly an evil empire quite literally saved the world and liberated millions.

It is no surprise that he will be honored in Prague, Budapest, and Krakow--the home of his great partner Pope John Paul II--later this summer for his role in exposing the great lie that was the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan succeeded as president because he knew what he was about. In his farewell address from the Oval Office, he said, ``I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, Stop. I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do. I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded the people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.''

I could not agree more.

And that Reagan Revolution--the aspiration of citizens for greater freedom and greater futures for the generations that follow--continues. I am proud to be a part of that revolution.

President Reagan took a flyer on me when I first ran for the Senate, supporting me in my primary. I have tried to do him proud. I remember well the blistering hot day in the Rose Garden when he signed the Hatch-Waxman legislation into law in 1984. In his signing statement, he joked that with this law ``[e]veryone wins, particularly our elderly Americans. Senior citizens require more medication than any other segment of our society. I speak with some authority on that.''

In my opinion, that law typified the commitments of President Reagan. Since its passage it has saved the Federal Government and consumers hundreds of billions of dollars--some say trillions--and it essentially created the generic drug industry and incentives for the creation of the next generation of life saving drugs.

I worked with him when he was in office. And as I work today for the citizens of Utah, his principled example is always on my mind. We still have work to do. Reagan understood the danger of what is today called progressivism, but was then called liberalism. It knows no bounds.

As he put it, ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''

In some respects, Ronald Reagan belonged to a different age. He was governor during the student protests of the 1960s. He entered the national political consciousness during a presidential campaign where the possibility of global nuclear conflict was an imminent threat. When he became President, he was only a few years removed from widespread urban riots and the end of the Vietnam war. When he spoke at Pointe-du- Hoc on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, he spoke to the men who actually scaled those cliffs and liberated a continent. Today, most of those veterans have passed on. But ultimately, Reagan remains one of us. I think that his advisor, David Gergen, got it wrong when he mused that Reagan's legacy was how much he changed our minds.

In my view, Ronald Reagan was a success because he understood that the American people did not need to change their minds. Americans, in 1980, had the same beliefs and hopes that we have always had. Ronald Reagan's genius was in giving voice to those hopes.

Ronald Reagan was a big man, made for a big screen, and eventually the biggest stage. He played his part well. To borrow from Hollywood, he knew

that even as time goes by . . . the fundamental things apply.

Before leaving office, President Reagan addressed the Nation one last time. Speaking to the citizens of this shining city upon a hill, he told us, ``[w]e did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.''

Indeed.

It has been said that Ronald Reagan had a love affair with the American people. He did. But it took two to tango. Ronald Reagan loved his country. But I think his country loved him more. That includes people on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, my remarks may take a little longer than 10 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that I may deliver my remarks in full.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have come a long way in 1 year.

On December 24, 2009--1 day before Christmas--this body passed a radical overhaul of our Nation's health care system. That is right. The majority passed ObamaCare on Christmas Eve.

It was not this body's finest moment. It was not the administration's finest moment. And I expect that this debate will go down in history for its persistent lack of attention to the considered views of ordinary Americans--Americans who rejected ObamaCare's giant new entitlement expansions and the job-killing taxes haphazardly cobbled together to pay for them.

It did not have to be this way. In the midst of the greatest fiscal collapse since the Great Depression, Americans wanted Democrats, who controlled all of the levers of power in Washington, to focus on job creation. Instead, like teenagers set loose when mom and dad leave town, they did what they wanted to, and focused on a government takeover of the Nation's health care system.

Surprising only the most ideologically driven, support for ObamaCare cratered during the townhall meetings of August 2009. The message was loud and clear. Our health care system, and in particular the government policies that contribute to unsustainable inflation in the health care sector, might be in need of reform. But the solution to our problems is not additional government regulation and control of health care delivery by Washington bureaucrats. And the solution is most definitely not to be found in the billions of dollars in new taxes, most of which will be passed through to American families in the form of higher premiums.

For those who did not deliberately put on blinders, the wishes of their constituents were obvious.

Stop the push for ObamaCare and move onto fixing the economy.

But the Senate did not listen.

Instead, prodded ahead by an administration that saw the great liberal dream of government-run health care slipping, the long march continued.

First, the Democratic majority cut short the Finance Committee's bipartisan negotiations.

Then, heads down, the majority plowed forward on the floor, allowing virtually no meaningful amendments.

And before going home for Christmas, it passed the most sweeping reform of the Nation's economy in over 70 years without a single Republican vote.

Every Democratic senator supported the bill.

Not one Republican did.

When ObamaCare passed the Senate, its proponents assumed it was on the

glidepath to enactment. But the American people had a different idea.

Our national unemployment rate was 10.2 percent--the highest in 26 years.

The American people understood that at a moment of historic economic challenges, the last thing the country needed was another budget- busting entitlement and sky-high taxes.

And just about 1 month later, this message was delivered again. In a new shot heard across the world, our colleague, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, was elected in a very clear referendum on the Democrats' health care bill.

The verdict of the American people, if the previous summer's townhalls left any doubt, was now crystal clear.

The push for ObamaCare must end.

Yet, the administration refused to yield.

They thought the people would eventually come to embrace the elegance of ObamaCare. If only the messaging was better, Americans would appreciate all of the good things that Washington politicians and bureaucrats had to offer them.

So after taking time to regroup and weigh their options, Democrats decided to defy the American people yet again.

A little over a year ago, the President hosted a summit at the White House and began his final push for his federalizing of American health care.

The resulting display was ugly. Americans, already revolted by the deals cut in this Chamber to secure the bare number of votes needed to pass the bill, now witnessed historic arm twisting and desperate efforts in the House to deny the obvious--that ObamaCare represented an unprecedented intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of citizens and clearly was a massive burden on taxpayers.

And so it passed.

And ObamaCare became law.

And the administration set about writing the thousands of pages of regulations that would govern how American businesses provide health benefits to their employees.

Fast forward to November of 2010.

The American people did not forget their snubbing by self-proclaimed progressive Democrats who in fact ignored the will of the people at every opportunity during the ObamaCare debate.

At voting booths across the country, they made clear to those congressmen and Senators who provided the votes for this job-destroying health care bill that such high-handed, illiberal behavior was not acceptable in a democratic republic.

Fast forward one more time.

Yesterday, barely 13 months after ObamaCare passed the Senate, and less than one year since it became law, the entire scheme was struck down in Federal court.

In a triumph for both personal liberty and the American Constitution, the individual mandate was found unconstitutional and ObamaCare was struck down.

Not part of ObamaCare.

All of ObamaCare.

Not surprisingly, the administration and its special interest allies responded with the same derision toward ordinary American citizens that has been on display throughout this debate. Instead of acknowledging the obvious--that ObamaCare represents a massive departure from any traditional understanding of limited government--White House officials went on the attack, calling the decision outside of the mainstream and ridiculing its reasoning.

Really?

Millions and millions of Americans believe that provisions essential to the operation of ObamaCare are unconstitutional intrusions on personal liberty that vastly expand the power of the Federal government.

They understand that the justification for the individual mandate by ObamaCare's proponents essentially removes any limits on the power of the Federal government to regulate personal and economic decisions.

Twenty-six states participated in this challenge to ObamaCare.

Thirty-two Members of this body, including myself, signed an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

But, according to the administration's narrative, we are the ones who are out of the mainstream.

This administration came into office buoyed by the good will of the American people and carrying banners of bipartisanship.

Two years later, after the politically disastrous decision to overhaul one-seventh of the Nation's economy with virtually no Republican support, they are blaming the victim.

After a Federal judge looked at this tough issue and determined that key elements of ObamaCare represented an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the national government, the problem remains--as it always is for liberals--the people.

Their views are just not sophisticated enough to grasp ObamaCare's consistency with a government of limited and enumerated powers.

The Democrats continue to think that if only they focus group ObamaCare better, they will get the messaging right.

The American people will learn to love it.

I don't think so.

The American people get it. I know my constituents in Utah do.

In an article yesterday in ``Politico'', Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen highlighted the reasons for the public's deepening disdain for ObamaCare. According to them, it is possible that no major piece of legislation ``has created the continued, vehement public opposition that health care has provoked since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.''

In their view, ``[t]here is one big underlying factor that continues to cause many Americans to oppose the health care bill: Its passage was anti-democratic. If the Republicans' campaign slogan of 1854 was the Crime Against Kansas, in 2010 it would be the Crime Against Democracy.''

Americans know that the Senate bill was 2,074 pages long.

They know it authorized 70 government programs.

They know it delegated regulatory power to the Obama administration 1,697 times.

They know it cut $465 billion from Medicare at a time when it already faced a $38 trillion unfunded liability.

They know the bill took from one already unsustainable entitlement to pay for a brand new entitlement.

They know it raised taxes by over $550 billion, repeatedly violating the President's pledge not to raise taxes on middle class families.

They know ObamaCare will destroy 695,000 American jobs at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

They know the Medicaid expansions threaten to bankrupt the States, with CBO estimating that the Medicaid expansion will cost American taxpayers $435 billion over 10 years.

They know the total cost of ObamaCare is $2.6 trillion.

And they know we can not afford it.

To borrow from Justice Scalia, the American people despise ObamaCare because the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. They know that this law was enacted in a totally partisan manner, and over the loud opposition of a majority of Americans.

And they know that the partisans promoting ObamaCare were not, and are not, forthright when they say it is budget neutral.

ObamaCare cuts $155 billion from hospitals.

It cuts $202 billion from 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage.

It cuts nearly $15 billion from nursing homes.

It cuts nearly $40 billion from home health agencies.

It cuts nearly $7 billion from hospices.

But these cuts don't go toward strengthening Medicare, a program with catastrophic unfunded liabilities. Rather, Democrats poured the savings from these cuts back into a brand new entitlement program.

Furthermore, so-called comprehensive health care reform managed to neglect the pressing need for a permanent doc fix. Yet, CBO's most recent estimate is that a long-term doc fix freezing Medicare payment rates at 2011 levels would raise the deficit by $249 billion, not counting an additional $53 billion in debt service obligations.

Not surprisingly, an Associated Press fact check of the President's State of the Union address concluded: ``the idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.''

That might qualify for the understatement of the year so far.

The likelihood that ObamaCare will not, as its advocates claimed, save the government money was confirmed again at a hearing last week by the CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster. He testified that the law will not likely hold costs down, and that contrary to the President's mantra, everyone will not be able to keep their insurance coverage if they like it.

In response, the White House political operation attacked the Administration's own nonpartisan professional expert, stating in a blog post: ``Once again, we disagree . . . History shows that it is possible to implement measures that will save money for Medicare and the Federal government.''

Who are you going to believe?

The chief actuary at CMS or a White House political operative?

The average American citizen might not have a Ph.D. in economics. But Americans do understand that massive new entitlement programs do not save money. In their guts, they know that former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin is right when he concludes that repeal of this flawed law would actually reduce the deficit by $300 billion.

Ultimately, all we want is a vote on repeal.

Last week, some of my Democratic colleagues came to the floor to advocate for rules changes that would have substantially limited the rights of the minority to debate.

The filibuster, they insisted, is an affront to democracy and majority rule.

Well, let them put their money where their mouths are.

All we are asking for is an up or down vote on repeal of ObamaCare.

This is what the people want.

Ultimately, you have to ask why the Democratic majority would deny us this vote.

I think I know the answer. It has a great deal to do with members of the caucus who know their constituents hate this law. Yet, these Members are torn between two masters. On the one hand are their conservative constituents. And on the other are the liberal interest groups who supported the government takeover of the Nation's health care system.

Unfortunately, the people again stand to lose in this calculus.

I understand that the conventional wisdom is that my colleagues and I are pursuing a symbolic act.

The guardians of the conventional wisdom opine that attempts to repeal ObamaCare might make for good theatre, but are senseless exercises.

In my view, this attitude demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the citizens of a democratic republic.

Over time, given the power of ideas and an engaged citizenry, initially symbolic acts have a way of becoming law. It might not happen overnight, but citizens--exercising their constitutional rights of petition and redress--have a way of reminding even the most hardened of partisan politicians that their job is to represent their constituents.

I have no doubt that some scoff at our efforts to repeal this bill.

But I rest easy knowing that I am standing with my fellow Utahans and the people of this country whose distrust of ObamaCare grows as they learn more about it.

I look forward to the day when ObamaCare is finally repealed. It may not be next month. It may not be next year, but it will be repealed. If we are smart, we will make it next month or in the very near future. When it is, it will be a triumph for our Constitution, a triumph for personal liberty and, most importantly, it will be a triumph for the American people to persevere in their resistance to this law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak on the occasion of CSM Robin Shipley's retirement after 42 years of honorable service in the U.S. Army Reserve.

A native of Ogden, UT, he rose to the highest rank of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps, command sergeant major--a crowning achievement after a long distinguished career. I am most impressed in his recent role as operations sergeant major for the Joint and Special Troops Support Command.

The Joint and Special Troops Support Command only recently was activated at Fort Douglas, UT. The difficult task of activating a new command requires tremendous leadership and tireless commitment. True to the finest traditions of the United States Army and the Noncommissioned Officer Corps, Sergeant Major Shipley rose to the challenge and performed his duties in an outstanding manner. This capstone performance was a fitting end to his long remarkable career.

Accordingly, as recognition of his exemplary service, Command Sergeant Major Shipley was awarded the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal

with second oak leaf cluster, Army Reserve Commendation Medal with third oak leaf cluster, and the National Defense Service Medal.

I am sure Command Sergeant Major Shipley would agree, his honorable career would not have been possible if not for the support of his wife, Judy, and son, Cody. To them, we are also grateful.

I know I am joined by all of my colleagues in the Senate congratulating the command sergeant major on the occasion of his retirement and extending to him the Senate's sincere gratitude for his dedication to the defense of our Nation. We wish him and his family only happiness in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Patent Reform Act of 2011, S. 23, introduced today by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. Senator Leahy and I, along with a number of our colleagues, have worked for years to enact much-needed reform to our Nation's patent system.

Last Congress, the Managers' Amendment to the Patent Reform Act of 2009, S. 515, enjoyed strong bipartisan support for Senate floor consideration and passage; the momentum undoubtedly will continue under the leadership of Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Minority Member Charles Grassley. Similarly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Minority Member John Conyers are true partners in this important legislation. They share the same desire to streamline our patent system in a way that will improve the clarity and quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, which in return will provide greater confidence in their validity and enforcement.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: we must ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as possible, not only to protect our country's premier position as the world leader in innovation, but also to secure our economic future. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn will create an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of new jobs.

One single deployed patent has positive effects across almost all sectors of our economy. As a result, properly examined patents, promptly issued by the USPTO, creates jobs--jobs that are dedicated to developing and producing new products and services. Unfortunately, the current USPTO backlog of applications now exceeds 700,000 applications. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology, but also represents dynamic economic growth waiting to be unleashed.

If enacted, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 would move the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system, which will bring greater harmony and improve our competiveness. Also, among other things, the bill would improve the system for administratively challenging the validity of a patent at the USPTO; improve patent quality; create a supplemental examination process for patent owners; prevent patents from being issued on claims for tax strategies; and provide fee-setting authority for the USPTO Director to ensure the Office is properly funded.

This bipartisan bill also contains provisions on venue; changes to the best mode; increased incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions; restrictions on false marking claims, and removes restrictions on the residency of Federal Circuit judges.

We have been working on this legislation since 2006. Reforming our patent system is a critical priority whose time has more than come. It is essential to growing our economy, creating jobs and promoting innovation in our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort and help move this important legislation forward.

Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Patent Reform Act of 2011, S. 23, introduced today by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. Senator Leahy and I, along with a number of our colleagues, have worked for years to enact much-needed reform to our Nation's patent system.

Last Congress, the Managers' Amendment to the Patent Reform Act of 2009, S. 515, enjoyed strong bipartisan support for Senate floor consideration and passage; the momentum undoubtedly will continue under the leadership of Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Minority Member Charles Grassley. Similarly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Minority Member John Conyers are true partners in this important legislation. They share the same desire to streamline our patent system in a way that will improve the clarity and quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, which in return will provide greater confidence in their validity and enforcement.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: we must ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as possible, not only to protect our country's premier position as the world leader in innovation, but also to secure our economic future. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn will create an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of new jobs.

One single deployed patent has positive effects across almost all sectors of our economy. As a result, properly examined patents, promptly issued by the USPTO, creates jobs--jobs that are dedicated to developing and producing new products and services. Unfortunately, the current USPTO backlog of applications now exceeds 700,000 applications. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology, but also represents dynamic economic growth waiting to be unleashed.

If enacted, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 would move the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system, which will bring greater harmony and improve our competiveness. Also, among other things, the bill would improve the system for administratively challenging the validity of a patent at the USPTO; improve patent quality; create a supplemental examination process for patent owners; prevent patents from being issued on claims for tax strategies; and provide fee-setting authority for the USPTO Director to ensure the Office is properly funded.

This bipartisan bill also contains provisions on venue; changes to the best mode; increased incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions; restrictions on false marking claims, and removes restrictions on the residency of Federal Circuit judges.

We have been working on this legislation since 2006. Reforming our patent system is a critical priority whose time has more than come. It is essential to growing our economy, creating jobs and promoting innovation in our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort and help move this important legislation forward.

Madam President, I certainly grieve and also appreciate all the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arizona. What a tragedy. But there are heroes there as well. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Madam President, in recent months President Obama has frequently discussed our Nation's disturbing fiscal situation.

He is right to do so.

Our yearly deficits and accumulated debt hang over the futures of our children and grandchildren like a sword of Damocles.

Though he was late to the table on this issue, President Obama seems to have finally recognized the frustration and anger of the American people over our Federal fiscal policy.

Recognizing that you have a problem is an important first step, and I applaud the administration for speaking about our Nation's structural deficits.

But this is a critical issue, and any solution will require that those responsible give a full and fair accounting of the policies that led to this crisis.

Unfortunately, rather than own up to his administration's complicity in our fiscal imbalance, the President prefers to blame our current and future fiscal problems on the previous administration.

For this President, the buck always seems to stop over there.

This trope is getting old.

Well before citizens began organizing against this administration and its historic spending spree, the President and

his Democratic allies in Congress were justifying their stimulus program by blaming the previous administration. Yet trying to pass off the consequences of the last 2 years on a long-retired President and a Congress that ended over 4 years ago is no longer plausible.

Try as they might, revisionist fiscal history will not absolve our friends on the other side for the fiscal decisions made on their watch.

I will explain that point separately, and in detail, in a few days.

It is well past time that this administration stop pointing fingers. The American people are demanding that their elected Representatives, in Congress and the White House, act like adults and fix this fiscal mess.

In a few weeks, President Obama will send Congress his third budget.

The fact that Treasury Secretary Geithner has already written us requesting legislation to raise the debt ceiling does not bode well for citizens seeking greater spending restraint from this administration. The people of Utah and of this Nation deserve a fair accounting of the spending decisions that have led to this request.

Let me be clear.

The President's desire for a larger level of public debt is a consequence of the fiscal policy choices that he and a Democratic Congress have made over the last 2 years.

Between 2007 and 2010, Democrats enjoyed unprecedented control over Federal policy. When the President was inaugurated 2 years ago, he set to work with historic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Never letting a crisis go to waste, he sought a fundamental restructuring of the American economy, one in which government would play a starring role.

Thanks to our Founders' design, the American people were able to go to the ballot box and give their opinion about these spending policies.

Unfortunately, the administration and its allies did not curb their spending in response to democratic uprisings.

The people spoke--first in Virginia and New Jersey, then in Massachusetts, and finally, last summer, nationwide.

But the Democrats, rather than adjust their policies accordingly, just kept on spending.

The tab for this binge is almost beyond description. In the 2 years that Democrats controlled Washington, our debt has risen by almost $3 trillion.

I have a chart documenting these staggering hikes in the debt limit.

During the short period of all-Democratic rule, the law was changed to raise the debt ceiling on three separate occasions.

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $789 billion, the cost of the stimulus bill at that time.

On December 28, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $290 billion.

And on February 12, 2010, President Obama signed a third debt limit increase bill of $1.9 trillion.

These dollar figures, in terms of the percentage of the economy they represent, are breathtaking. I, like most other Members on both sides of the aisle, eagerly await the President's State of the Union Address. The President is a gifted speaker. And in his usual, eloquent manner, I am sure he will skillfully lay out his fiscal and economic policy goals.

As the incoming ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, let me be the first to say that Republicans are happy to hear the President contemplating serious deficit reduction proposals. We would be overjoyed if he actually took a stand for a meaningful attack on structural deficits and the debt.

But we will judge his proposals harshly if they provide mere window dressing, rather than bold efforts to address a spending trajectory that is approaching crisis status.

Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks.

By the way, here is a chart depicting a photo of Mr. Sutton from Life.com.

How would Willie respond?

He allegedly said he robbed banks because that is where the money is.

If President Obama wants to propose credible deficit reduction proposals, he needs to go where the deficit dollars are.

And what is the source of those deficits?

Taking Willie Sutton's answer to heart, where do we look for those deficits?

They are in the trillions of dollars in new spending that the American taxpayer has been burdened with by this administration.

Non-defense discretionary spending, by itself, has grown by 24 percent over the last couple of years.

And that 24 percent figure does not include the stimulus bill spending.

If stimulus spending is included, nondefense discretionary spending has grown by 84 percent.

That is right, Madam President, 84 percent.

How many typical taxpaying American families have grown their budgets by that much in the last couple of years?

Let's take a look at the Gallup weekly survey of daily consumer spending as a comparison. I have a chart which shows the trend line in daily consumer spending.

Over here, we can see from the chart consumer spending before the financial crisis of fall 2008 and the recession.

It is running near or above $100 per day.

Then what happens?

Americans cut back their extra spending.

It is right here on the rest of the chart.

Is it any wonder Americans are telling us to cut our spending?

They have cut spending. Why can't we in Washington do the same?

When the President laid out his last two budgets, the loudest bipartisan applause came when he stressed fiscal discipline.

That reaction should surprise no one. Though conservatives led the way, the American people understand that deficit reduction is not a partisan issue. If the promises of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution--promises of liberty and opportunity--are to mean anything for future generations, our country needs to take up deficit reduction now.

Republicans are going to insist on meaningful deficit reduction as a course correction to our currently unsustainable fiscal path. As our Nation comes out of this painful slow-growth period--hopefully sooner rather than later--we must focus on cutting the deficit and the debt.

As Republicans, we agree with the President on the priority of fiscal discipline.

But deeds mean more than words.

And twice, the President's budget, in spite of rhetorical nods to fiscal discipline, has gone in the direction of unpaid-for spending, new government programs and entitlements, and massive financial burdens on the next generation of American taxpayers.

The numbers don't lie.

The President and the Democratic leadership have dramatically expanded the deficit and piled onto the debt.

Two years ago, Republicans and Democrats dramatically disagreed on the stimulus bill. Out of all the Republicans in the House and Senate, only three supported the stimulus bill conference report.

Along with most of my Republican colleagues, I rejected this stimulus bill for several reasons.

First was the size and the form of the stimulus. Most on our side understood that $1 trillion in deficit spending was an unacceptable burden on the people who would ultimately foot the bill.

Second, we questioned the focus of the stimulus. We weren't keen on trying to grow the economy by priming the government pump. Spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money on the academic theory that you have to spend money to make money was a gamble the American taxpayer could not afford. And last year, while the administration and its allies were out promoting recovery summer, citizens in Utah and around the country had long before figured out that the administration's stimulus bet was a big loser.

Finally, what disturbed us most was the hidden fiscal burden built into the bill. Although sold as a $787 billion bill, the real cost of the stimulus was, in fact, much higher.

I am going to use a chart to show this hidden cost of the stimulus bill. This chart was produced last year but will be updated when we receive the Congressional Budget Office baseline.

According to the nonpartisan CBO, if popular new programs in the stimulus

bill are made permanent, the cost will be $3.3 trillion.

To use Washington speak, the greatest threat of the new stimulus bill was that it raised the baseline.

This is a nifty trick if you can pull it off.

Its purpose is to open any future spending cuts, no matter how modest, to withering attack.

Here is how it works.

First, Democrats raise spending for some program--to borrow from George Costanza, we will call it The Human Fund.

After Democrats take control of Congress and the White House, spending for The Human Fund goes up by 25 percent, from $1,000,000 to $1,250,000.

Then, when the people reject this spending and send Republicans to roll it back, efforts to cut that spending by a meager 5 percent, from $1,250,000 to $1,187,500, leads all of the interest groups dependent on this federal money to scream that the sky is falling.

An attack on The Human Fund is an attack on all that is decent in this country!

Never mind that this program is still substantially better off than before the Democrats' massive increase in spending.

All that we will hear is that Republicans are ruthlessly seeking to cut 5 percent from this program's budget.

And so it goes.

Our deficit and debt continue to grow as irresponsible and unaffordable increases in spending are baked into our budgetary cake.

This strategy of raising the baseline is on full display in the stimulus bill and the threat that its programs--sold to the public as temporary--will become permanent.

This chart details CBO's analysis of the stimulus.

Let us move from left to right on the chart.

The first column is the basic cost of the bill. If the making work pay refundable tax credit is extended, there is $571 billion in future deficits.

It is in the second column.

If the new entitlement spending in the stimulus is made permanent, then the cost of the bill more than doubles.

It means almost $1 trillion in new hidden entitlement spending right here.

In the fourth column, we have the appropriations spending.

If those increases become permanent, then there is $276 billion in new nondefense discretionary appropriations in this bill.

Finally, we have the rent on all this borrowed money. That is the interest expense. CBO tells us that the interest cost alone on the overt new spending and the hidden new spending from the stimulus totals $744 billion.

Total it all up, and we get $3.3 trillion, not $787 billion.

The total cost of the stimulus is $3.3 trillion.

Our Nation can simply no longer afford this.

These are CBO figures. They are not from a conservative think tank.

There are a couple of simple ways for the stimulus bill supporters to correct this trajectory.

If they want to keep the long-term cost of the stimulus down, they could agree to make all of the stimulus provisions temporary.

Or they could agree to offset extensions of stimulus spending with other spending cuts.

But our friends on the other side have done just the opposite. They have insisted on extending the policy in the stimulus bill without offsets in other areas of spending.

You will recall then National Economic Council Director Larry Summers' three Ts tests for stimulus.

To be effective, the stimulus needed to be timely, targeted, and temporary.

It is failure on that third T, the temporary test, which has been very troubling. Two years into this failed economic experiment, and Democrats still refuse to agree that temporary stimulus proposals should remain temporary.

The path forward is not going to be easy.

While we do have a recent example of deficit reduction, it was not generated by this administration or its congressional allies. If you want to look at enacted legislation over the last decade, there is one significant spending reduction bill. It was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It contained a modest amount of deficit reduction.

The deficit reduction attained was $35 billion. And how did we achieve those savings? That bill was accomplished through reconciliation. The other side opposed it in lock step.

In the end, only Republican votes carried that stand-alone deficit reduction measure.

Yet now American taxpayers are being asked to believe that Democrats have found religion on deficits and debt.

Our friends on the other side will, no doubt, say time out. We have produced a significant deficit reduction bill, they will say.

They will point to last year's ObamaCare legislation. They will argue that this bill, which creates massive new entitlements, somehow saves money. Our Democratic friends will even cite a CBO score showing $230 billion in deficit reduction from this bill.

This assertion does not pass the laugh test.

Anyone who looks beyond the basic score will see that ObamaCare is another huge deficit generator that will burden the American taxpayer for generations to come.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released an analysis, derived from CBO data, that tells the full story of ObamaCare's deficit impact. Here is what Chairman Ryan said:

Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion needed

to implement the law. The score double-counts $521 billion

from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and

Medicare cuts. It strips a costly doc-fix provision that was

included in initial score. It measures 10 years of revenues

to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that

the creation of a new trillion-dollar, open-ended entitlement

is a fiscal train wreck.

Add it all up and the fiscal reality is that ObamaCare busts the budget by $701 billion.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Chairman Ryan's analysis be printed in the Record.

This double counting of the Medicare cuts is a dangerous accounting gambit. Former Senator Gregg and I warned the Medicare trustees about it in a letter last year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

A clear pattern has emerged with respect to Democratic rhetoric on the budget. They speak loudly about deficit reduction, while continuing to write checks that this Nation cannot cash.

Consider the last debt limit increase bill, which included the much ballyhooed statutory pay-go scheme. My friends on the other side speak of it frequently.

But they have also been the most frequent violators of both the spirit and letter of statutory pay-go.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee analyzed all of the spending offsets and other budget restraints rejected since statutory pay-go was adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this analysis be printed in the Record.

Total it up and you will find that the cost of Democrats end-running their own pay-go rule meant almost $280 billion in additional deficit spending.

I think this point needs to be very clear.

Senate Republican attempts to force our friends on the other side to abide by the letter or spirit of their own pay-go rule were rebuffed for almost all of last year. This was not some academic exercise. And now the American taxpayers are on the hook for roughly $280 billion, courtesy of Democrats purportedly committed to spending restraint.

Still, we are heartened that Democrats are at least claiming a commitment to deficit reduction.

Talking tough is a necessary--though not sufficient--step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

Similarly, it is a positive development that the President has endorsed passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Maybe the administration is waking up to the importance of our pending trade agreements for our exports and the workers who make them.

But the proof of his commitment to our exporters must go beyond the Korea FTA. We can no longer let our trade agreements with Panama and Colombia languish as we lose competitiveness and allow other countries to seize these markets for their workers.

Talking about trade does not produce jobs. We need the President to take action and submit these agreements to Congress. And we need that action now. The U.S. worker cannot afford to wait.

Passage of these trade agreements can boost our economy and our competitiveness without additional spending. They are important tools that we must put to work. If the President chooses this route, I believe he will find an important ally in Congress.

I look forward to President Obama's proposals for prioritizing deficit reduction. There is no issue more critical to this Nation's future.

And I expect we will hear quite a bit about it in the State of the Union Address.

The President can count on applause from our side of the aisle if he presses for reductions in out-of-control spending. But merely relabeling new spending as investments will not make our deficits go away, and it will do nothing to tackle our escalating debt.

The President must give serious attention to the legitimate arguments and concerns of conservative citizens if he wants to achieve anything more than a pleasant sounding rhetorical flourish.

President Obama did inherit a serious budget deficit. And our friends on the other side will, once again, applaud that line. They will cheer the assertion that they merely inherited deficits. They will spin the convenient tale that Republicans alone bequeathed the deficit to President Obama. But that is certainly not the case. And the record is clear. A Democratic Congress and a

Republican President created this deficit from bipartisan policies they jointly developed.

To those Democrats who claim Republicans have no right to discuss deficits, they need look no further than their own actions. Take a look at the fiscal effects of the stimulus bill they crafted 2 years ago. Take a comprehensive look at the real deficit impact of ObamaCare.

Take an honest look at the appropriations bills that piled on double- digit increases in spending.

American families don't have the luxury of 84 percent or 24 percent increases in their spending. They have made their priorities and restrained their spending.

If American families can prioritize, deleverage, and live within their means, I hope the President will push his allies in Washington to do the same.

All of us in Congress await the arrival of President Obama's third budget.

The American people are demanding that he make deficit reduction a priority. And they are asking Congress to approach this subject in an intellectually honest fashion.

We need to acknowledge that when it comes to the budget, the road to fiscal ruin has been paved with good intentions. In the name of fixing the economy, the Democrats' stimulus bill has imposed both short-term and long-term costs on American taxpayers, jeopardizing economic growth and, with it, liberty and opportunity. That damage has been expanded with un-offset extensions of what we were told were temporary provisions.

As we start writing a budget, let's do it with all the fiscal cards on the table. Let's remove the political blinders and deal with the fiscal facts. And that means being realistic about expiring tax relief, its merits, its economic growth effect, and its political popularity.

This is not a problem that we can tax our way out of. Getting our fiscal house in order is going to require hard decisions on spending. We need to put our shoulders to the wheel. We owe it to the people who sent us here.

There is an old saying that applies here. I am not the first person, nor will I be the last, to reference it in the context of our fiscal troubles. The saying is: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We need to use our shovels to fill this fiscal hole, not dig it deeper.

I look forward to this debate on spending. It will not be an easy one. But the American people have demanded that Congress take up this cause, and I fully intend to.

Ultimately, I am confident that we will achieve meaningful deficit reduction. Yet I go into this debate with my eyes open.

President Reagan, in the foreign policy arena, reminded us to trust, but verify.

As we await the President's State of the Union speech, Republicans trust that Democrats will make a nod toward deficit reduction, but we need to verify whether they are serious about getting this problem under control.

Democrats do not have a great track record when it comes to cutting spending. But hope springs eternal.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my friend, the junior Senator from Indiana. Senator Evan Bayh has served the good people of his State for two full terms and will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. He will most certainly be missed.

Senator Bayh was born in Shirkieville, IN, in 1955. He is, of course, the son of the distinguished Senator Birch Bayh, who served in this Chamber for 18 years. Evan attended college at Indiana University, where he graduated with honors. He received his law degree from the University of Virginia. After graduating from law school and serving a year as a clerk to a Federal judge, Evan returned to Indiana to go into private law practice.

Senator Bayh's career in public service began in 1986, when he was elected to serve as Indiana's secretary of State. He held that position for 2 years before he was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988.

As Governor, Senator Bayh earned a reputation as a fiscal conservative and a voice of moderation. He was able to work with members of both parties to achieve the best results for the people of Indiana. During his tenure, taxes in Indiana remained low, while the State enjoyed multiple budget surpluses. He also had great successes in areas such as education, crime, and job creation. Indeed, he was a very effective Governor throughout his two terms in office.

Two years after completing his second term, Evan was elected to serve in the same Senate seat held by his father. And, he brought with him the reputation and skills that had made him such a successful Governor.

As Indiana's Senator, Senator Bayh has demonstrated that one can be a proud member of their party and still find ways to work with the other side. No one can doubt that Evan is a Democrat. He comes from a family of Democrats and I think his credentials as a supporter of his party's agenda are beyond dispute. However, he has often been looked to as a deal-maker here in the Senate. Senator Bayh has demonstrated sound judgment and strong leadership throughout his career in public service. That, coupled with his willingness to reach across the aisle and find common ground, has made his one of the most respected voices in the U.S. Senate.

Earlier this year, Senator Bayh announced his retirement. As he explained his decision not to run for re-election, said the following:

For some time, I have had a growing conviction that

Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much

partisanship and not enough progress--too much narrow

ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a

time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not

being done.

In a lot of ways, I agree with Senator Bayh's assessment of Congress. Too often, the peoples' business gets set aside in favor of politics and partisan agendas. While I think we all hope that things will get better in the future, one thing is certain: we need more people like Evan Bayh in both parties.

I am certain that Senator Bayh will be successful in whatever endeavor he chooses. But, while I am sure he doesn't need it, I want to wish him and his family the very best of luck.

Russ Feingold

Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my friend, the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Senator Russ Feingold, the fierce and independent Democrat who has served the good people of his State for 18 years, will be departing at the end of this session. He will certainly be missed.

Senator Feingold was born in 1953 in Janesville, WI. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin and then went to University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. After returning to the U.S., he attended and graduated from Harvard Law School and then went back to Wisconsin to begin a career as a lawyer in private practice.

While Russ was a long-time political activist, having volunteered and worked on a number of election campaigns, he began his career in public service in 1982 when he was elected to serve the first of two terms in the Wisconsin State Senate. Ten years later, he was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate, and he has been here ever since.

I don't think it is any secret that Russ and I tend to disagree on most issues. But, I have always admired his commitment to his principles and his devotion to his beliefs. Now, I may give Democrats a hard time every now and then with my criticism, particularly when I find myself at odds with their agenda. But, I have never been able to fault Senator Feingold personally because I believe he is principled public servant who is simply trying to do what he believes is best for the country. He has been willing to do so even when it has been unpopular or when the majority of his own party was moving in a different direction.

Russ has a reputation for being contrarian at times. To be honest, I think he is probably proud of that fact. While he has certainly earned that reputation, I have always believed his actions and his positions-- including those I have strongly disagreed with--have been rooted in his sincerely held beliefs.

Throughout his time in the Senate, Senator Feingold has been a fierce, articulate, and effective advocate for his ideals. While he and I have rarely been in agreement, he has always had my respect and admiration. I want to wish him the best of luck in any future endeavors.

Christopher Dodd

Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut. After five terms and 30 years in the Senate, Senator Christopher Dodd will be leaving us at the end of this session. He will most certainly be missed.

Chris was born in Willimantic, CT, in 1944. He was the fifth of six children born to his parents, Grace Mary Dodd and another Connecticut Senator, Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd graduated from Providence College and then spent 2 years in the Peace Corps. When he returned to the U.S., he enlisted in the Army National Guard and later served in the U.S. Army Reserves. After graduating from the University of Louisville School of Law in 1972, Chris practiced law in New London. However, just 2 years later, he would answer the call to public service. Chris was elected to the House of Representatives in 1974 and has represented the good people of Connecticut in Congress ever since. All told, Senator Dodd spent three terms in the House before coming to the Senate in 1980.

Throughout his time in the Senate, Chris has been an unwavering presence. He's chaired the Rules Committee and the Banking Committee. He has been among the most prominent members of the HELP and Foreign Relations Committees. Over the years, our paths have crossed numerous times. Of course, most of the time, we have been on opposing sides. But, there have been a few times--some significant times--where we have been able to put our differences aside and work together.

Most recently, I worked with Senator Dodd on passing the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America. Chris talks often of his service of the Peace Corps and the lessons he learned during that time. As a Senator, has been a tireless

advocate for the Peace Corps program and for volunteerism in general. In that regard, he and I have much in common. As a young man, I served a full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I too learned much about the benefits of selfless, volunteer service while serving as a missionary and those 2 years were instrumental in my understanding of the world and instilled me with a desire to serve and help others. The Serve America Act was meant to embody these ideals and provide similar opportunities for others. It could have very easily been a purely Democratic endeavor. But, in the end, we were able to work together in drafting and passing this legislation. With Chris's help, the Serve America Act became one of very few bills passed during this Congress with a broad, bipartisan majority here in the Senate. It was, in my opinion, a piece of legislation that represents the best of what both parties have to offer. Fittingly, we named the bill after Chris and my mutual friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

I want to wish Senator Dodd and his wife Jackie the very best of luck going forward.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today to recognize the departure of my good friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Arlen Specter has been present here in the Senate through some of its most contentious times. He and I have worked side-by-side-- sometimes in agreement, other times in opposition--for many years. His presence will be sorely missed.

Arlen is the son of immigrant parents. He was born in Wichita, KS, in 1930 to Lillie Shannin and Harry Specter. Harry served in World War I in the U.S. infantry, just a few years after migrating to the U.S. from Russia. While in combat in France, Arlen's father was seriously wounded. Yet a few years later, the Federal Government, strapped for funds, broke its promise to pay World War I veterans a bonus. This, of course, led to a veterans march on Washington and a tragic encounter between the U.S. Army and the protesting veterans. It also led, indirectly, to Senator Specter's career in public service as he has been fond of saying that he came to Washington to get his father's bonus and that he would run for reelection until he got it.

Arlen attended college at both the University of Oklahoma and the University of Pennsylvania, graduating from the latter in 1951. He served in the Air Force during the Korean war as an officer in the Office of Special Investigations. In 1953, he married Joan Levy, with whom he has raised two sons and four grandchildren. In 1956, he graduated from Yale law school and entered into private practice.

Senator Specter's career in public service began in 1959 when he became an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. In 1963, he was appointed to serve as assistant counsel on the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two years later, he was elected to serve as the district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, a position he held for 8 years. After another brief stint in the private sector, Arlen was elected to the Senate in 1980 and has been the longest serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history.

Arlen has had his hand in a number of high-profile efforts here in the Senate. However, I will always remember him for his role in some of the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation fights in our Nation's history. He and I both served on the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork, which were, at the time, the most contentious in our Nation's history. In the end, Arlen and I reached different conclusions as to whether Judge Bork should have been confirmed. I still think Arlen was wrong to oppose Judge Bork, but, I have never doubted that his decision to do so was sincere.

Arlen and I once again found ourselves at the center of a Supreme Court fight during the nomination hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas. During those hearings, Senator Specter had the daunting task of questioning Ms. Anita Hill for the Republican side. I was and continue to be impressed with the manner in which he handled that responsibility. Those were difficult, sensitive issues. None of us wanted to disrespect Ms. Hill, but we believed it was important to ensure that the truth be examined and brought to light, and I've always thought that Arlen handled the matter with the necessary professionalism and respect.

In the years that followed the Thomas hearings, a number of people expressed their displeasure for the way I treated Ms. Hill during those hearings. I was always quick to remind them that it was Arlen who questioned her, not me. I was the one who questioned Justice Thomas. But, in the end, I think the historical memory of that time has tied the two of us together.

Senator Specter has a reputation for being a fighter. And, having been on both sides of the debate with Arlen, I have to concur with that assessment. His was among the sharpest minds we have known here in the Senate and I am grateful for the privilege I've had to serve alongside him.

I want to wish Arlen and his family the best of luck.

Sam Brownback

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, the senior Senator from Kansas. Senator Sam Brownback has been a devoted public servant and a friend to all of us here in the Senate. And, at the end of this session, he will be moving on to bigger and better things. I will miss him dearly.

Senator Brownback was born in Parker, KS, in 1956. He was raised on a farm--a farm on which his parents still live to this day. Sam was leader in all aspects of his life before coming to the Senate. In high school, he was the State president of the Future Farmers of America. While attending college at Kansas State University, he was student body president. And, he was president of his class when he attended law school at the University of Kansas.

After law school, Sam went to work as an attorney in Manhattan, KS. In 1986, he was the youngest person ever appointed to serve as the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. In 1990, he went to work in the White House of President George H.W. Bush as a White House fellow. After another stint as Kansas's Secretary of Agriculture, Sam was elected to the House of Representatives as part of the 1994 Republican revolution. And, in 1996, he was elected to replace the former Senate majority leader, and my good friend, Senator Bob Dole. The people of Kansas have kept him here ever since.

Looking over his career in public service, it is clear that Sam Brownback is Kansas man in every sense. The voters of Kansas have recognized this more than anyone else. That is why they have elected him three times to serve in the Senate. And, of course, that is why he is currently the State's Governor-elect.

Throughout his time in the Senate, Sam has been a tireless advocate for the rights of those who have no voice, whether it is the rights of the unborn, the rights of refugees, or the rights of the victims of human trafficking. I believe this is due, in no small part, to Sam's religious faith. For as long as I have known him, Sam has never been afraid to speak publicly about his religious convictions and his belief that those convictions required action on his part. As a religious man myself, I have always admired that part of Senator Brownback's personality and found his openness refreshing.

Over the years, Sam and I have typically found ourselves in agreement on most issues. We have worked together on numerous occasions. While I regret that we won't be working together any more after this session, I want to congratulate him once again on his recent victory in the Kansas gubernatorial election. I am confident that he will be an effective and popular governor for the people of the State he loves so much.

Kit Bond

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend Senator Kit

Bond. Senator Bond has represented the people of Missouri in the U.S. Senate for the last 24 years, and, at the end of this session, he will depart for greener pastures. I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that his presence will be missed.

Kit was born in St. Louis, MO, in 1939. He is a sixth generation Missourian and, after knowing Senator Bond for many years, I know that the people of Missouri have never been far from his thoughts. As a young man, he left Missouri for a short time to attend college at Princeton University and law school at the University of Virginia, where he graduated first in his class. After law school, he served as a law clerk for the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals before going to Washington, DC, to practice law with the renowned law firm Covington & Burling.

Senator Bond returned home to Missouri in 1967 to begin a long career in public service. After losing a brutally close congressional election in 1968, Kit went to work for the Missouri attorney general's office, serving under the great former Senator John Danforth. In 1970, Kit was elected Missouri State Auditor at the age of 31. Then, 2 years later, when he was only 33 years old, he was elected Governor of Missouri. Kit was the first Republican Governor that State had seen in nearly three decades.

For me--and this may be a little selfish--the most important accomplishment of Kit's first term was rescinding Executive Order No. 44, which had been issued by Missouri Governor Liburn Boggs in 1838 and ordered the expulsion or extermination of all Mormons from the State of Missouri. On June 25, 1976, then-Governor Bond rescinded that order and issued an apology to the Mormons on behalf of all Missourians. I remember that day clearly. And, while I was not yet acquainted with Kit, he earned my gratitude and respect.

As Governor, Senator Bond's star rose dramatically. He was even considered as a potential running mate for President Gerald Ford in 1976. Yet, in a surprising upset, Kit lost his reelection bid for governor that year. But, Missourians soon came to regret this mistake and reelected him to the Governor's office in 1980.

After finishing his second term as Governor--a successful term by almost all accounts--Kit was elected to the Senate in 1986. And, thanks to his good judgment, his commitment to his home State, and to his character, he was relected in 1992, 1998, and 2004.

For several years, I have had the pleasure of serving with Kit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he currently serves as vice chairman. From that position, I have been able to see his wisdom and good judgment firsthand. It can be difficult serving on that committee, working on important issues that, if everything goes right, will never see the light of day. But, I can say this--Senator Bond's commitment to our Nation's security is second to none.

Mr. President, it has been an honor and privilege to serve next to Senator Bond for these many years. I want to wish him, his wife Linda, and their family the best of luck in any future endeavors.

Jim Bunning

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, Senator Jim Bunning. Senator Bunning will be departing from the Senate at the end of this session. I wanted to take a few moments to offer some remarks.

Now, Jim is a distinguished two-term Senator whose career in public service has spanned more than three decades. Yet when the history books are written, it is likely that he will be more well known for his first love, the game of baseball.

Jim was born in Southgate, KY, in 1931. He graduated from Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH, with a degree in economics.

Most know that Senator Bunning was a Major League pitcher for 17 years, mostly with the Detroit Tigers and the Philadelphia Phillies. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the greatest pitchers to ever put on a glove. Jim retired with the second-highest strikeout total in baseball history. He was only the second pitcher in history to record 1,000 strikeouts and 100 victories in both the American and National Leagues. Before Jim, only the legendary Cy Young had accomplished that feat. And, of course, on June 21, 1964, Jim pitched a perfect game against the New York Mets, achieving one of the rarest and most sought-after feats in all of sports. Senator Bunning was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996, 2 years before he came to the Senate.

After retiring from baseball, Jim chose a life of public service. In 1977, he was elected to the city council of Fort Thomas, KY. Two years later, he was elected to the Kentucky State Senate, where he became the Republican Leader. And, in 1986, he was elected to the first of his six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. And, in 1998, Senator Bunning was elected to the Senate and has served here ever since.

Throughout his time in Washington, Senator Bunning has been an advocate for a number of causes, including the preservation of Social Security for seniors, fiscal and financial reform, and ending America's dependence on foreign energy sources. He's played a key role on some of this chamber's most influential committees, including the Banking, Energy, Budget, and Finance Committees.

For the last several years, I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Bunning on the Finance Committee. I have always admired his commitment to his principles and his willingness to speak plainly when it became necessary to do so. His presence on the committee and in this Chamber will certainly be missed.

I want to wish Jim and his family the best of luck going forward.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, I rise to speak today to recognize the departure of my good friend Senator Judd Gregg. Senator Gregg has been a tireless advocate for the people of his State and devoted public servant. He will most certainly be missed.

Senator Gregg is a New Hampshire man through and through. He was born in Nashua, NH, in 1947. His father, Hugh Gregg, served as Governor of New Hampshire when Judd was just 6 years old. Judd graduated from Phillips Exeter in 1965 before going on to earn his baccalaureate from Columbia University and his law degree from Boston University School of Law.

After finishing law school 1972, Judd returned to Nashua to commence his law practice, though it wouldn't be long before he would answer the call into public service. From 1978 to 1980, Judd served on the New Hampshire Governor's Executive Council. Then, in 1980, he was elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for four terms. In 1988, he followed in his father's footsteps and was elected Governor of New Hampshire and was reelected in 1990.

In 1992, after two successful terms as Governor, in which he was able to balance the budget and leave the State with a surplus, Judd was elected to represent New Hampshire here in the U.S. Senate. And, after serving for three terms, he is stepping down at the end of this session.

If one were to describe Judd's political philosophy, I think they would have to say that he was for fiscal discipline even when fiscal discipline wasn't cool. As chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and senior member of the Banking Committee, his has always been a voice of warning and restraint, even when restraint wasn't the status quo around Washington. His knowledge and expertise on these issues made him one of the most respected voices in our debates over health care, economic and fiscal policy, and financial regulatory reform.

While Judd has always been a conservative, he's never let go of his independence, refusing to put party before his principles. Everyone in Washington claims that they are that way, but Senator Gregg is one of the few that has walked the walk. That, more than anything, is why he has won the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

The State of New Hampshire has been well-represented here in the Senate and I know the people of his State are grateful for Judd's service. It has been both an honor and a privilege to have served alongside Senator Gregg. While I am certain that Judd will be successful in whatever endeavor he chooses next, I am even more certain that the Senate will be a lesser place without him here.

I want to wish Judd and his wife Kathleen and their family the very best.

George LeMieux

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the junior Senator from Florida. Though Senator George LeMieux has only been here a short time, he has been an effective advocate for the good people of Florida. I want to wish him the best of luck.

Senator LeMieux was born in Homestead, FL. He is the son of a building contractor. He grew up in Coral Springs, FL, and attended college at Emory University, earning a degree in political science. George then went on to obtain his law degree from Georgetown University.

Senator LeMieux's career in public service began in 2003 when he went to work in the Florida attorney general's office. He would eventually be named deputy attorney general, a position he held for 2 years. He would later serve as the Florida Governor's chief of staff, overseeing numerous state agencies.

After his time in the Governor's office, George returned to the private sector and was headed down what had to be a lucrative career path in the private sector at one of Florida's most prestigious law firms. But, he answered the call to public service once again in 2009 when Senator Mel Martinez announced his retirement and Florida was in need of a Senator.

Since being appointed to the Senate, George has served on the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. He has had a reputation for being pro-growth, pro-business, and a deficit hawk. In fact, he has been one of the few people in the Senate who put their money where their mouth is and actually proposed a plan to address our fiscal problems. Frankly, I think we could use more people like that here in the Senate.

It is just a difficult fact that, here in the Senate, some are here only for short periods of time. But, every State deserves to be represented in this Chamber. Senator LeMieux answered the call to serve during what has been an extremely difficult time in the Senate. He has done so with dignity and an unwavering commitment to the people of Florida.

Once again, I want to offer my best wishes for George and his family in all their future endeavors.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the departure of junior Senator from North Dakota. Senator Byron Dorgan, a devoted public servant who has spent most of his life serving of the good people of North Dakota, will be leaving the Senate at the close of this session. He will certainly be missed.

Senator Dorgan was born in Dickinson, ND, in 1942 and was raised in Regent, ND. His family worked in the petroleum and farm equipment business and they also raised horses and cattle. Byron attended college at the University of North Dakota and graduate school at the University of Denver. He began his career in public service at the young age of 26, when he was appointed to be the North Dakota State Tax Commissioner. He was youngest constitutional officer in the history of North Dakota.

Senator Dorgan came to Washington, DC, in 1980 when he was elected to serve in the House of Representatives. He served six terms in the House before coming to the Senate in 1992. And, for three full terms, he has ably and energetically represented his native State. During his time here, he has been a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, and, of course, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. The people of North Dakota have benefitted from his efforts on those committees and, I think he would be the first to tell you, that his home State has never been far from his thoughts here in the Senate.

While Senator Dorgan and I have, more often than not, disagreed on the issues, he has always been sincere in his belief that what he was doing was in the best interest of our country. Such commitment to principle has to be admired, even if, in the end, you disagree with the conclusion that is reached. And, I should note that there have been times, actually in some high-profile moments, in which Byron has voted differently than the majority of his party. In the Senate, which, of late, has been highly polarized and extremely partisan, going against the grain takes courage and independence, qualities I have admired in Senator Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan is a good man. I want to wish him, his wife Kim, and their family the very best of luck.

Blanche Lincoln

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas. Senator Blanche Lincoln will depart from Senate at the end of this session. She will certainly be missed.

Senator Lincoln is seventh-generation Arkansan. She was born in Helena, AR, in 1960 to family of wheat, soybean, and cotton farmers. Her first elected office was president of the student council at Helena Central High School. She got a bachelor's degree from Randolph Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, VA, and then went to work on the congressional staff for Representative Bill Alexander.

She left the Congressman's office after 2 years to pursue private sector work in Washington, DC, but would return home to Arkansas to run against her former boss in 1992. Her campaign for Congress was successful and Blanche became the first woman ever to represent the Arkansas First District in the House of Representatives.

All told, Senator Lincoln served two terms in the House before running for Senate in 1998. That year, at the age of 38, Senator Lincoln became the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate and only the second female Senator in the history of Arkansas.

Blanche's career in the Congress has been defined by her willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Senators from both parties. She is a proud Democrat but has never been an ideologue. Her devotion has never been to a party line or platform, but to her own convictions and to the people of Arkansas.

I have had the privilege of working close with Senator Lincoln on a number of occasions. Much of the time, we found ourselves on different sides of the issues. But, there were also a number of times where we were in agreement. In fact, I can think of several occasions where she defied her own party's leadership and was, at the end of the day, a difference-maker on a number of important efforts.

Here in the Senate, things have a tendency to get contentious in a hurry. Far too often, partisanship gets in the way of good policymaking. We should commend those who are willing to see past the politics of the day and focus on the long-term impact of the things we do here in the Senate. Senator Blanche Lincoln is one of those people.

I want to wish Senator Lincoln and her family the very best of luck going forward.

Mr. President, I ask the Record reflect that if I would have been present for yesterday's vote on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors--DREAM--Act of 2010, H.R. 5281, that I would have voted against cloture. My wife and I had a long standing family commitment to attend my grandson's graduation.

The American people sent us a clear message on November 2, 2010, to focus on getting our economy moving again. It bears repeating: our country's unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. Yet instead of listening to the true needs of this Nation, the majority in the Senate is moving full speed ahead with legislation in order to curry favor with political constituencies.

Pushing this bill through during a lameduck session of Congress is not how Utahns or Americans want Congress to operate. The bill before us is one of many versions of the DREAM Act introduced in the last 2 months. Though H.R. 5281 would result in a significant change to U.S. immigration law, the bill never received 1 day of a committee markup. An issue as important as this one needs to follow the regular order of the legislative process.

Now more than ever, our Nation's porous border is flowing over with increasingly violent crimes--fueled by drugs, gangs and even human trafficking. Unfortunately, this chaos is spilling into our communities. That is why, when it comes to immigration, my primary focus is on how we can finally secure our borders and how best to fix our broken immigration system.

The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical

boundary between the United States and Mexico. Indeed, it now includes addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage. All of these important issues are addressed in my recently introduced bill, the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act, S. 3901.

Mr. President, I remain understanding about individuals who, through no fault of their own, were brought to this country for a better life. However, the urgent challenges facing our country must take priority.

Mr. President, I was regrettably absent for the vote on the cloture motion to H.R. 2965, The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act as my wife and I had a long standing family commitment to attend my grandson's graduation. If I had been present, I would have voted against cloture.

I have long stated that our troops should not be held hostage to controversial social policy changes at a time when our Nation is at war. Several top military leaders have concluded that changing military policy could jeopardize our soldiers fighting for our Nation. That is something I cannot support.

These concerns were only reaffirmed a few days ago when the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Amos was quoted as saying, ``I take that very, very seriously . . . I don't want to lose any marines to the distraction [of implementing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell] . . . I don't want any marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center military hospital in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.''

This opinion was echoed by Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, who stated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he opposed implementing any reform until 2012 because he did ``not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low.''

Moreover, the recent report also showed that the percentage of those servicemembers in combat arms units which predicted a negative or very negative effects on their unit's ability to ``work together to get the job done'' stood at an alarming 48 percent within Army combat arms units, and 58 percent within Marine combat arms units.

Our military leaders and front-line forces have spoken. They do not believe repealing don't ask, don't tell is appropriate at this crucial time in our Nation's history and neither do I.

Madam President, I have always pledged to the people of Utah that I would fight any tax increase that gives Washington more of their hard-earned money to spend. Allowing middle-class families, small businesses, and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying this government hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is the right thing to do.

Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases that threatens our economic future. If this tax relief expires, Utah would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year and household disposable income would drop by $2,200. Over 150,000 Utah families would be hit with the alternative minimum tax. Small businesses would see their marginal tax rates go up by as much as 24 percent and our GDP would take almost a 2 percent hit.

I say to my colleagues in the House who want to change this proposal to impose more taxes on American families, you act not only at your own peril, but that of the American people. You had 4 years to stop these tax hikes, but refused. If you change this package for the worse now, with only 2 weeks left in this Congress, I will do everything in my power to ensure your changes never pass the U.S. Senate.

Some argue, why not wait until after January when Republicans control the House to get a better deal. I appreciate that position, but that is a gamble I am not willing to take. Democrats will retain control of the White House and the Senate they will simply drag their feet while blaming conservatives. The collateral damage of inaction will be hard- working families who will see lower paychecks starting on January 1. Experts point to the damage to the economy, but I am as concerned about the damage to the budgets of Utah families. In this case, tax relief denied to all those families, if delayed indefinitely, could be tax relief denied.

I also want to mention the death tax--an insidious tax that disproportionately hits small businesses and family farms. This year it was fully phased out. From my viewpoint, that is the right policy. But, if we don't act, on January 1 it goes back up to what it was in 2000--a $1 million threshold and a top rate of 55 percent. The proposal before us today includes the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise.

That bipartisan proposal puts in place a $5 million threshold--$10 million per couple--and a top rate of 35 percent. When Republicans were in control in 2006, we couldn't even get this proposal through Congress. So this is a pretty good deal and to my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I applaud his efforts. If Congress fails to act, on January 1, 10 times the number of estates will be hit, including 13 times as manner farm-heavy estates.

If I had my way, all the income tax rates would be made permanent-- that is the kind of certainty our economy and job creators need. Furthermore, I would never extend some of the so-called temporary tax provisions that look like tax relief, but in reality are little different than welfare through the Tax Code. Far too much new spending is mislabeled as tax relief. Thankfully, some of those provisions were dropped, like the so-called build America bonds tax credit. We also should pay for this extension of unemployment insurance so it doesn't add to the debt.

Lastly, to those who believe that instead of this proposal, we should be undertaking wholesale tax reform: you are absolutely right. We need to reform our Tax Code to broaden the base while lowering rates to make our economy more competitive. But we don't have time to reform the code before January 1. As the next lead Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, I will lead the fight to simplify the Tax Code, and cut back on out-of-control Washington spending. Once we stop these tax hikes, we can then begin the long-overdue national discussion about how best to overhaul our overly burdensome and inefficient tax system.

The bottom line is that this package is not perfect. But it does at least one very important thing it allows the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money and not hand it over to the Federal Government.