Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I understand it is a sensitive topic, one about which many of my constituents on both sides of the issue have strong feelings. Certainly most of us, if not all of us, have a family member or friend with a disability, and all of us live in a society that includes the disabled as highly valued members of our communities. I have heard from advocacy groups consisting of people who hope and believe that this treaty will protect disabled Americans as they travel abroad and as they go about their lives. But I have also heard from parents of disabled children who are concerned that this treaty, in adherence to the ``best interests of the child'' standard in article 7, will threaten their rights as a parent to determine the best education, treatment, and care for their disabled children. Proponents of this treaty will dismiss those concerns as myth, but I simply cannot support a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constant looming threat of State interference. If this vote and this treaty were in fact about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities, then I might have a different position and the debate today would take on a very different tone. But this treaty is ultimately not about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities because this treaty simply has no enforcement mechanism to protect those rights, the rights of disabled Americans, including veterans, who might travel to countries such as China or Russia or Mali or any other country that might choose to adopt this treaty. If the Senate desires to protect the rights of disabled Americans who travel abroad, then this Senate would do better to encourage other nations to model their own reforms, their own internal legal structures after the Americans with Disabilities Act which, 20 years after its passage, still sends a message that disabled Americans will always have fair access to housing, employment, and education in this Nation. I have mentioned a few things the treaty does not do. Now I would like to mention a few things the treaty does do that causes me some concern. First, article 34 establishes a committee, a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. This committee will establish its own rules of procedure, and parties to the treaty are required to submit reports to the committee every 4 years. In general, U.N. human rights treaty committees have made demands of state parties that fall well outside of the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of state parties. Sometimes their recommendations also fall far afield from the stated topics of concern within the individual treaties. For example, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, as it is sometimes known, included a recommendation that China decriminalize prostitution. The U.N. Committee on Racial Discrimination went to great lengths to scold the United States on its detention policy at Guantanamo Bay. These recommendations often fall well beyond or are even in direct conflict with the treaty's goals. Article 7 of this treaty provides a ``best interests of the child'' standard stating: In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. We all want to support the best interests of the child, every child. But I and many of my constituents, including those who homeschool their children or send their children to private or religious schools, have doubts that a foreign, U.N. body, a committee operating out of Geneva, Switzerland, should decide what is in the interests of the child at home with his or her parents in Utah or in any other State in our great Union. Article 4 of this treaty obligates the United States to recognize economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic U.S. law. The Senate, in my opinion, has not adequately investigated how this standard will affect domestic U.S. Federal and State law. We have had one hearing on this issue that included both proponents and opponents of the treaty but did not substantively address my concerns about this standard, about this significant addition to what would become the law of the land of the United States of America. For these and other reasons I must oppose the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEE. If my distinguished colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts is correct, that this would have no impact on our law, if in fact it does nothing, then why would we make it part of the U.S. law? Why would we make it part of the law by ratifying it and making it the law of the land under article VI of the Constitution?

Mr. LEE. Yes, of course. It doesn't become the law of the land just because it is in the treaty. But it often does. Its entry into customary international law can become facilitated by the U.S. ratification of it.

Mr. LEE. First of all, whenever we ratify a treaty it becomes the law of the land under article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, whenever a body of law, whether embodied in U.N. convention or otherwise, becomes part of the corpus of customary international law, that often makes its way into U.S. judicial opinions. Is it direct? No. Does it directly undo any statute? No. But that doesn't mean it has no effect. If it had no effect we would not be here debating it today. It is the type of effect we worry about. The Senator and I see things differently as far as what type of effect it might have. But that is not to say it has no effect. We should not be ratifying a treaty that we think might offset U.S. law as it exists now. We believe this could have that impact. Exactly where that is going to come up, I cannot prove to the Senator where that is going to happen. But it does have some impact, and when we ratify a treaty we make it the law of the land.

Mr. LEE. No. I do not agree with that.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I wish to speak for 5 minutes regarding the Feinstein-Lee amendment.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding amendment No. 3018, the Feinstein-Lee amendment. It has come to my attention that some opponents of the Feinstein-Lee amendment have made an argument that habeas corpus is sufficient to protect the rights of Americans apprehended on American soil and detained by the United States Government. This is nothing more than another way of suggesting that the government should be able to detain some Americans indefinitely without charge or trial. I disagree and believe that our constitutional traditions demand more than this-- significantly more. The fifth amendment of our Constitution provides that ``No person . . . shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written: The gist of the Due Process Clause, as understood at the founding and since, was to force the government to follow . . . common-law procedures traditionally deemed necessary before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. This right of American persons to due process of law is foundational to the very idea of individual liberty from unwarranted government intrusion. I have worked with Senator Feinstein and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft an amendment originally entitled the Due Process Guarantee Act to ensure that this basic constitutional right is indeed protected. I believe even with the serious national security threats we now face, America must hold fast to our most fundamental constitutional rights and liberties. The U.S. Government should not be authorized to detain Americans indefinitely without charge and without trial. As Justice Scalia explained, the proposition that the Executive lacks indefinite wartime detention authority over citizens is consistent with the Founders' general mistrust of military power permanently at the Executive's disposal. I believe it is clear that the Founders of our Constitution were acutely aware of this critical tradeoff--the tradeoff we still face today--between safety on the one hand and freedom on the other. On this very point, Alexander Hamilton was prescient. He wrote: Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and their political rights. To be more safe they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free. Our Nation's Founders warned us about the great danger of sacrificing our most basic liberties in the pursuit of security--security at all costs. They provided us with a Constitution framed to prevent precisely such a tragic outcome. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Feinstein-Lee amendment and against the mistaken idea that the government may detain American persons indefinitely without charge and without trial. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time to Senator Feinstein.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Today I wish to pay tribute to my professor and my friend Richard Wilkins who passed away on Monday. Richard was truly a renaissance man, a law professor turned international advocate who also enjoyed unique local notoriety for his 27 consecutive performances as Ebenezer Scrooge in the Hale Center Theater's annual production of A Christmas Carol. In the canon of literary classics, Charles Dicken's Scrooge is a beloved but unlikely hero, a selfish miser turned community benefactor. Wilkins embraced the dynamic nature of Scrooge's transformation and saw the role as an opportunity to convey much deeper lessons regarding the values of family and personal improvement. The Hale Center opened in 1985 and cast then 32-year-old Richard as Scrooge, certainly unaware that they had found their star for the next 27 consecutive seasons. In 2005, Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, the queen of Qatar asked him to move to Qatar to lead an institute for family studies. He would not agree until she assured him he would be able to return to the Hale Center every Christmas season to take up his top hat and bathrobe to reprise his role as Scrooge. Richard loved delivering Scrooge's famous line ``I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the past, the present, and the future.'' Those close to Richard undoubtedly agree that he took these words to heart, carrying the spirit of Christmas into all other aspects of his life. Richard graduated from my alma mater Brigham Young University Law School in 1979. He served as an assistant to my father, Solicitor General Rex Lee and argued several cases before the United States Supreme Court. Just 5 years after his graduation from BYU Law School he returned to teach constitutional law and civil procedure. He was a gifted public speaker, well known for his engaging lectures in the classroom and scholarly insights on the law. He had a unique intelligence that propelled him to prominence in the legal world and established him as a powerful voice the international community. Richards's greatest contribution to the world came as an international advocate for family values. His first exposure to the family values movement came in an academic effort to change the language the United Nations used to portray issues relating to the family. After engaging with international leaders on critical family values issues his academic curiosity turned into a personal mission. He traveled around the world presenting papers on the importance of traditional marriage, the need to protect children and the sanctity of life and other family centered topics. He served as the managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development for the nation of Qatar and founded the World Family Policy Center at BYU. His leadership as chairman of the Defend Marriage Coalition placed him at the forefront of Utah's debate over traditional marriage. Richard's fiery passion for causes related to traditional family values was matched by his warmth and love for those around him. He could disagree with individuals and groups but was never disagreeable. Richard Wilkins' life serves as an illustration of the renowned biblical charge ``Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'' He was a man blessed with tremendous talents and he used those talents to bless all those with whom he came in contact, in his own community and around the world. Richard's global vision and reach brought the power of family values to the forefront of international discourse, particularly in developing nations striving to solidify a cultural identity. Sharon and I would like to express our deepest condolences to Richard's wife Melany, their four children Brooke, Brinton, Claire and Rex and their eight grandchildren.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Feinstein-Lee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. At the outset, I wish to note this amendment is the product of bipartisan discussion and collaboration on an issue that is important to all Americans. I am pleased to have been a part of that process. Senator Feinstein and I have worked closely together over the course of the past year to craft what we believe represents a very prudent course in protecting both our Nation and our liberties at the same time. Security is important. And precisely because it is important it must not be acquired at the expense of our individual liberty. It may well be said that government's most important basic responsibility is to protect the liberties of its citizens. Our Nation has fought wars on American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty, and we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in pursuit of greater security, especially when we can achieve security without compromising liberty. The Feinstein-Lee amendment does precisely that. It protects liberty by ensuring that no American will be deprived of due process. The fifth amendment states: No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The sixth amendment, likewise, guarantees that individuals accused of a crime will have access to an attorney and access to a trial by a jury consisting of that person's peers. Our amendment protects those rights and it provides the following: An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States. It is important to note the Supreme Court has never specifically held that an authorization for the use of military force somehow authorizes the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. person apprehended within the United States, and I don't think we should break new ground here. I don't think we should start opening that precedent and suggest that is somehow acceptable. The Constitution does, in fact, require nothing less than traditional due process for all Americans apprehended within the United States. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has written: The gist of the Due Process Clause, as understood at the founding and since, was to force the government to follow . . . common-law procedures traditionally deemed necessary before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. When a citizen was deprived of liberty because of alleged criminal conduct, those procedures typically required committal by a magistrate followed by indictment and trial. I understand and respect, of course, the fact that we live in perilous times. We, unfortunately, as Americans have enemies not only around the world but even within our own borders. This is unfortunate. This creates challenging times for us. I hope and pray every day we will be successful in fending off those who would harm us, those who hate our way of life and everything about us and will do everything in their power to destroy us and our liberty. But that does not--it cannot, it will not--mean we, as Americans, should surrender our basic instinct to be free. We must stand behind our 225-year-old founding document as it has been amended to ensure that our liberty isn't taken away from us to give us a path toward providing for our security without jeopardizing the freedom our American citizens cherish so much and have fought so hard and for so long to protect. Granting the U.S. Government the power to deprive its own citizens of life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against the very nature of our Nation's great constitutional values. This amendment--the Feinstein-Lee amendment--protects those values. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to explain my ``no'' vote on cloture this morning in connection with the sportsmen's bill, S. 3525. This is a large bill. It is made up of a number of legislative proposals that have been put together. In many settings this is a good way to legislate. In many respects it is, and we utilize this procedure on an almost constant basis in order to make the laws of our country. Like many other pieces of legislation that come before us that have been formed in this fashion, this is a bill as to which I can say I support it in part and I don't support it in part. There are parts of it I like a lot, and there are other parts I like a lot less. That is exactly why we have an amendment process. True debate in this country, especially in this body, presupposes and depends for its existence on the availability of an open amendment process. You see, when people go into a store, they can decide which items they want to buy. They can decide to buy bread and milk and eggs or any combination of the three or other products they might want. It would be disturbing if they got to the grocery store counter and were told they may not buy bread and milk and eggs unless they also buy a bucket of nails, a half a ton of iron ore, a book about cowboy poetry, and a Barry Manilow album. Sometimes that is what we are told when we get to the table to vote in the Senate. In order to get some things we want, we have to buy a whole bunch of other things we might not want. That is a reality of the legislative process. It is a reality that goes along with compromise, and it is one we live with every day. But, again, this is why it is important for us to have an amendment process, so that we can at least debate the relevant merits of each piece of legislation. More importantly, so that we might figure out how to take a good piece of legislation and make it better or how to take a bad piece of legislation and make it good. In this circumstance, the majority leader has used a procedure known as filling the tree. He filled the tree, which means, in effect, that we can't offer amendments. We can't offer any amendments other than those few the majority leader decided could be offered. This shuts down debate. There can be no significant debate beyond that which will lead to a vote once the tree has been filled. This is a problem. Now, Republicans in this body, myself included, voted recently to proceed to this bill believing in good faith there would be an opportunity to amend this bill. The bill is important to me in many respects. One of the things that has gotten my attention is that it addresses a number of issues related to Federal public lands. It addresses a number of other issues related to wildlife conservation and wildlife management and other issues that are important to hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts across the country and in my State in particular. One of the reasons this bill is especially important to me is that I represent the great State of Utah--a State that has a lot of Federal land. In fact, two-thirds of the land in my State is owned by the Federal Government. For that and other reasons I would like the opportunity to address this piece of legislation by offering amendments--amendments that would make a good bill better. But this process--a process whereby the majority leader rules this body by dictate--is not good for the Senate. We have come to expect the Senate will be a great deliberative body. In fact, the Senate has long prided itself on being the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. There are a number of realities about the Senate that make this possible--far more possible than it might be in the House of Representatives. Here in the Senate we have only 100 Members. Just down the hall, in the House of Representatives, they have 435 Members. In that body it is not always possible to have an open amendment process. In this body it is assumed this is the usual order. This is how we are supposed to operate, to have an opportunity for Members to offer and debate and discuss amendments in advance of voting for the bill at the end of the day. Yet we have not had such an opportunity in this case because the leader filled the tree. This is significant, and I want to emphasize this point. It is true, of course, that majority leaders from both political parties have utilized this procedure from time to time, for one reason or another-- perhaps out of a professed need to expedite the legislative process in certain instances. But this majority leader has utilized this procedure a lot more than others. In fact, he has utilized it, by my count, a total of 67 times, more than any other majority leader in history. Why, I ask, has he done this? Why did he do it in this circumstance? Why has he done it in so many other circumstances throughout this Congress and throughout his service as majority leader? Is it because the Senate has demonstrated an inability to debate and discuss bills and amendments to bills in a reasonable, responsible manner? I don't think so. Let's point to a couple of examples. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act, which this body passed toward the end of last year--the NDAA of 2011. It passed out of this body overwhelmingly, notwithstanding the fact there were a number of amendments introduced. I believe there were dozens of amendments that were introduced, debated, discussed, and ultimately voted upon. Another example involved the farm bill. It was passed by this body earlier this year. If I am not mistaken, we had over 70 amendments to that bill. I appreciated the majority leader's willingness in that circumstance to allow us to have a pretty open, robust debate and an open amendment process. We still passed the bill, even though we had to conduct a lot of debate and have a lot of discussion and have a lot of votes. But this, you see, is what makes this the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is what separates us from other legislative bodies around the country and throughout this planet. So it is not the case the Senate simply isn't responsible enough to be able to handle something such as an open amendment process because it has demonstrated its ability to do so time and time and time again. Now, let's talk about some of the things I like in this bill. I support the fact that this bill would increase access to public lands and remove some burdensome regulations on some activities occurring on those lands. On the other hand, I am not as wild about the fact that this bill devotes $6.5 million on neotropical migratory birds on a program that would require 75 percent of those funds to be spent outside the United States. I know in the big picture of things this is a very small figure in terms of our total national budget. Nevertheless, this is a lot of money. It is a lot of money to hard- working Americans who are paying their taxes in order to fund programs like this. We ought at least to have an opportunity to debate amendments so that Americans can feel as if their money is being spent in the United States for causes that are important to Americans and not on birds outside the United States. Other Senators have other differences with the bill, other concerns. I agree with some of those concerns; I disagree with others. Each of them should have an opportunity to have those concerns aired, to have them debated in connection with amendments they might choose to introduce. We should be debating all of them. Instead, in effect, we are debating none of them. That kind of process is especially important in this circumstance because, you see, this bill, as I understand it, has never gone through committee. Normally, in committee we have an opportunity to put a bill through the markup process, to make amendments in committee. This didn't go there. All the more reason we should have an open amendment process right here. So I have introduced several amendments, and I will refer to just a few of them. One of them would involve a proposal to not spend money we don't have in order to support the conservation of multinational species. It will cost $150 million over 5 years. In other words, it is one thing to spend money on habitat preservation and species rehabilitation for species that actually exist in the United States. It is another thing to spend a lot of money on species outside the United States, on creatures that have never entered our borders and never will. That is something I think Americans are concerned about, and it is something I think we ought to have a chance to debate as long as we are debating and voting on this legislation. I have another piece of legislation that would require State legislative approval for any new Federal land designations. As I said a few minutes ago, with the Federal Government owning two-thirds of the land in my State, I am especially concerned about the possibility of, for example, the President deciding to just designate a new national monument within my State. This happened a few years ago when President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument inside Utah. He didn't go to Utah to announce it, he went to Arizona to announce it. This is beautiful land. It is beautiful territory. But all of this was accomplished by the stroke of a pen from one Chief Executive without any opportunity or input from Utah, from its 3 million residents, from its elected officials. I think anytime the Federal Government takes this kind of action--action that will have a profound impact on the State, on its sovereign rights, on its ability to raise revenue, on its ability to encourage and promote economic activity within its boundaries--there ought to be input and approval from the State legislature. I have an amendment that would address this concern. I have another amendment that would offer certain Federal lands for disposal by a competitive sale process. We have an enormous amount of land in this country. Some of it is being put to good use; other land is being set aside because of its wilderness characteristics; still other land is just sitting there not doing anything. I think some of that land could be sold and some of that money could be used to fund our programs--programs that are cash strapped, along with everything else in this country right now. These and other amendments need to receive consideration. I am not saying every one of them has to pass in order for this legislation to proceed, but every one of them ought to be debated, and the American people should have an opportunity to have their input through their own elected Senators. I would deeply regret it if this were somehow an indication that our majority leader intends to operate the Senate this way, not only throughout the duration of this Congress but into the next Congress as well. I want to be clear that I have great respect and admiration for our majority leader. I have known him for most of my life--since I was 11 years old, in fact. I consider him a friend. I ask him--I implore him--as my friend to reconsider this practice of filling the tree and thereby forestalling the introduction of amendments. We need an open amendment process. Our status as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body requires nothing less. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand tonight in support of the amendment of Senator Paul to provide limitations on the amount and scope of foreign aid the United States sends abroad. This is not a decision I have reached quickly, nor is it an issue I take lightly. I appreciate that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, conditions already exist on some of the foreign aid we send to Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. I respectfully submit, however, that these conditions are not producing the desired result nor are they yet fully enforced. For example, is Pakistan cooperating with the United States on countering terrorism efforts and preventing terrorists from basing or operating in Pakistan, as is already required in section 7046 of Public Law 112-74? Are the programs and activities we support in Afghanistan sustainable, as is also required by section 7046? If the answer to these and to other questions regarding this aid could possibly be no, then we have an obligation to the American people to at least review this aid and inspect every single dollar we send abroad to ensure that the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan, to Egypt, and to Libya are well spent. I support this amendment, if for no other reason than to begin the debate on the merit of sending billions of American dollars abroad each and every year. When will we stop sending this kind of money to nations that harbor terrorists and imprison those who, like Dr. Afridi, would defend our interests? To be clear, I don't think the amendment of Senator Paul is perfect. Many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about this amendment's potential effect on some of our allies outside the Middle East. That is why I and several other Senators have asked our staffs to work with Senator Paul and his office to narrow the scope of this amendment. Senator Paul was responsive to our concerns and was willing to make the requested changes. Unfortunately, the majority leader refused to allow Senator Paul to modify his own amendment. I don't yet have 2 full years under my belt as a Member of this body, but I have been around just long enough to see that managers' amendments and modifications are routinely applied to their own legislation, and I am very sorry Senator Paul was not given the courtesy that apparently is reserved only for other Members of this distinguished body. In a Senate where the majority leader has recently announced ``the amendment days are over,'' I guess I should not be surprised.

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to respond to my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. In the first place, it is significant. Dr. Afridi has been in prison for more than a year. It is significant that this amount of time has elapsed. It is appropriate that we respond in some fashion. I don't know why exactly legislation has not emerged from the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I sit. The fact is it has not. I respect the junior Senator from Kentucky for having the courage to bring forward this legislation. Regardless, the fact is that this legislation is now before us. We can argue about how it got here and about whether it should have gone through committee, but it is before us. The fact that it is now before us means the Senator from Kentucky who introduced it ought to have certain prerogatives--prerogatives to change it or modify it before it gets to the floor. That is the point I was making, and that is the point I think bears some mention here. I think that is a point which was somehow lost in this discussion today, and that is most unfortunate.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and honor my friend Ryan McCoy, a departing member of my staff. Ryan McCoy is, in fact, much more than just a member of my staff; he has been the energy behind many of my legislative goals, and he is also a close friend. While no tribute of words could ever match the debt of gratitude he truly deserves, I would like to pay tribute in the official records of Congress to someone who fought to make a difference both for the State of Utah and for our country. C.S. Lewis said: Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: ``What! You too? I thought I was the only one.'' My friendship with Ryan McCoy, my former legislative director, was born in that very way described by C.S. Lewis. We met back in 2009 when I was speaking to a group of Utahans about a topic near and dear to my heart: article I, section 8 of the Constitution. I spoke of my passion for the Constitution and for the principles of limited government embodied therein, and my message apparently struck something of a chord with Ryan, who had recently taken a greater interest in finding ways to restore those same principles. We spent several hours after the speech talking about what the Constitution meant to both of us. I had not always thought about running for office, but when Ryan suddenly prepared a PowerPoint presentation for me about the problems we face as a country and about the ways in which he and I, working together, could make a difference, I started thinking much more seriously about it. When Ryan and I discussed later his leadership role in my office, his wife Kara jokingly told him that he had no idea what he was doing. But the truth is that we needed to know only one thing, just one thing: that we could make a difference. In the end, I believe that was our greatest asset. Ryan and I shared a vision for change in Washington. We knew it would not come easily, but it had to come from people who wanted to make a difference. It had to come from people who had lived in difficult economic circumstances and felt the need for change as it tugged at their own pocketbooks and at their own individual freedoms being eroded by an ever-expanding government. At a meeting a few months after we met, Ryan spoke of the common goals we shared. He said that our movement would be based on a clear, unequivocal message that it was time to change course for our country. Ryan and I shared this vision, and Ryan knew others would catch on to it. In the nearly 2 years he served as my legislative director, he worked hard, he worked tirelessly, he worked constantly to keep us focused on these legislative goals and to keep us true to our principles. It is safe to say that I would not be here today without the hard work and dedication of Ryan McCoy. Once here, I would never have been able to do many of the things I have done without Ryan McCoy's expert assistance. Ryan will be remembered in my office as a respected leader and as a man who truly loves his country. Too often in the hustle and bustle of Washington, we tend to take our staff members for granted. It is when they leave that we truly see the impact they have had and the wide breadth of influence they had while they were here. As much as we will miss Ryan, we will also miss his wife Kara and her shared enthusiasm every bit as much. I thank Kara. She and Ryan have become an important part of my life, an important part of my family, an important part of my office family. In addition to thanking Kara, I also want to thank Ryan and Kara's children, Connor, Tate, Gage, and McCall, for loaning their dad to me for these few years. Kara once told me that during a particularly busy time in the Senate, one of their children--I do not remember which one--actually came to her and asked her where their dad had gone and whether or when he might be returning. I appreciate their sacrifice, and I hope they will grow up knowing their father is a true hero of mine--and always will be--one who works tirelessly for his country and for their future. I wish them the best back in Utah, and on behalf of myself, Sharon, and my entire staff, I extend my love and sincere appreciation to each of them. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, with great respect to my distinguished colleagues who are supporting this treaty and supporting a move to move it to the floor for a full vote right now, I understand and appreciate that they may not share some of the concerns expressed in this letter, concerns surrounding the fact that treaties, once ratified, become the law of the land, the supreme law of the land, concerns surrounding the fact that many Americans may have concerns about this, concerns that may be expressed during the upcoming election season. To the extent this becomes a matter of debate, it may have an impact on the election. I think this might have been part of what motivated 36 Senators to sign this letter saying that neither this treaty nor any other treaty ought to be voted upon during the lameduck session. With regard to the comment made by my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois moments earlier, I, of course, understand we are not now in a lameduck session. That is my entire point. If it is true that the lameduck session is too soon to consider treaties, it follows a fortiori, it is a much stronger point to make the point now that it is too soon to consider this now. With regard to the Law of the Sea Treaty, we have held a number of hearings--I cannot remember exactly how many--in the Foreign Relations Committee. I want to say at least three, four, maybe five, this year. We have had exactly one hearing on this one. I understand that some of my colleagues might be satisfied with the assurances provided by some lawyers within the State Department to the effect that this is entirely compatible with U.S. law to the effect that it would not impose any additional, new, different obligations on U.S. law. I am not satisfied that that is the case. I therefore object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to take just a few moments to explain why I plan to object. I have right here a letter that is signed by 36 Members of this body who express the viewpoint that because of the prerogative we have as U.S. Senators to ratify treaties--see, two-thirds of us have to provide our advice and consent to ratify a treaty before it can take effect. This is important, in part because article VI, section 2 tells us that once ratified, the treaty becomes the supreme law of the land. We have 36 Senators on this letter--a letter addressed to Leader McConnell and Leader Reid--explaining that for various reasons we do not think any treaty should come up for ratification during the lameduck period of the 112th Congress, and we explain that no treaty should be brought up during this time period and conclude that we will oppose efforts to consider any treaty during this time period. The primary reason cited in the letter is the fact that it is very important to make sure we have a full understanding of what these treaties mean. It is also important that before we undertake any significant changes to the law--law becoming supreme law of the land-- we need to understand the implications of these treaties fully. If it is true, as 36 Members of this body concur in this letter, that it is too fast to move something like this or another treaty through during the lameduck session of the 112th Congress, it follows a fortiori that it is also too fast to do it now. With regard to this particular treaty, we have had exactly one--and only one--hearing on this, on July 26 of this year. I appreciate and respect the words of my friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, and I am pleased with the fact that he is comfortable with the language of the treaty. I and some of my colleagues are not yet comfortable with it, and I and some of my colleagues are not yet convinced as to the full ramifications of the language of this proposed treaty. I, therefore, object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is bad enough that this Senate's Leadership, led by the Democrats, has not passed a budget in 3\1/2\ years. What is even worse than that is the fact they have not offered a budget in this Congress. They have not voted for or supported a single budget in this Congress. We have had, of course, one budget voted on in the Senate during this Congress, written by a Democrat. That was the President's plan, which received zero votes from his own party, zero votes from the Republican Party last year and this year. If we are able to come to the table, if we are to come to a compromise, we have to have offers on both sides. We have to have a plan on both sides. So all the calls for civility, all the calls for a compromise fall on deaf ears unless or until we have two willing parties at the table with proposals they are willing to offer.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American from the great State of Utah--the world-renowned author and speaker Stephen R. Covey, who passed away on Monday, July 16, 2012. He was regarded as a legendary thought-leader throughout the global business community yet showed over the course of his 79 years that the true measure of life is not in making a dollar, but in making a difference. Stephen leaves behind a legacy filled with meaningful words and memorable deeds. His prolific and powerful writing contained the kind of personal insight and inspiration that transformed the hearts, minds and lives of countless individuals. He is best remembered for his 1989 New York Times best seller, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. The book sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 38 different languages. Seven Habits served to prove Stephen's passionate belief that talking about principles changes behavior better than talking about behavior changes behavior. Ever the teacher and ever the student of strategies for achieving personal and professional excellence, Stephen followed his pursuit of these life-changing principles in subsequent books including First Things First, The 8th Habit, and The Leader in Me. Covey's words, ideas, principles and practices have been used in a variety of educational settings, from college management classes to corporate business seminars. In 2011, Time magazine listed Seven Habits as one of the 25 most influential business management books of all time. While Covey's words propelled him to become a global titan of bold business strategies and tactics, it was his deeds, often in family settings, which provided the notably personal touch found in his teaching and training. His poignant examples and anecdotes from his personal life illuminated how to actually live the principles he taught. Covey often shared a humorous experience he had with one of his sons when taking a business call at home. His son felt that Stephen had been on the phone for far too long, so he took out a jar of peanut butter and began spreading it on Covey's balding head. Covey pretended to ignore it, so the son added a layer of jam and eventually a piece of bread. Stephen used this experience to teach the principles of proper priorities, life balance, and building relationships. He demonstrated it was possible to complete an important phone call, indulge his son's mischievous antics, and create a meaningful memory. One of his best known principles, Sharpen the Saw, focused on the need for rest and renewal. Covey stressed the important impact of family dinners, family vacations, family service in the community, and families working together at home. He recalled ``work parties'' in which his whole family would tackle a project. Instead of just laboring for hours, they would laugh and talk and eat snacks while they worked and then go to a movie once they finished. Stephen continually showed that when you put your family first you can create a legacy that will truly last. His deeds as a father, husband, neighbor, and friend are the kind that communities, States, and nations would do well to promote and emulate. Covey's contributions to the leadership community extend far beyond his literary works. He revolutionized the field of leadership and management development with the creation of the Covey Leadership Center in Utah. The Covey Leadership Center eventually merged with Franklin Quest to form FranklinCovey, a worldwide management firm specializing in training and consulting services for individuals, teams and businesses. His extensive client list includes a vast majority of the Fortune 500 companies, world leaders, celebrities, national governments, and numerous charitable organizations. In 1996, Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential Americans, and in 2011 Thinkers50 named him one of the top 50 business leaders in the world. He was an inspiration to millions, a revolutionary problem solver, and an icon for business managers everywhere. It is impossible to calculate the immense amount of good that Stephen Covey did for so many people. His insight helped to shape the future of an untold number of businesses, resulting in better jobs and indeed better lives for people around the world. Stephen Covey's life mission is reflected in the mission of FranklinCovey: ``We Enable greatness in people and organizations everywhere.'' Stephen Covey's words and deeds helped people discover and deploy the principles that would ultimately enable them to achieve greatness in life and in business. My wife Sharon and I extend our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of Stephen Covey. His wife Sandra, his 9 children, 52 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren have a tremendous legacy to cherish and follow. Stephen taught his family and indeed the world that ``to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy'' is what life is all about. We honor his memory, celebrate his service and recognize that while his presence will be missed, his principles and practices will live on for generations to come. No words of tribute to Stephen Covey could be complete without a challenge to do something, to produce personal deeds that match the words and the principles he loved and lived. So I conclude this tribute with a challenge for each of us to remember: We honor best those who have gone before by living our lives with excellence today. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I see our time has expired.

Mr. LEE. I thank the Senator very much. Madam President, on Monday we heard from Democrats who insist that Congress must now raise taxes on the American people. In fact, they are so committed to this task that they are willing to take the country off the fiscal cliff in order to get their way. This is unfortunate. It is unnecessary, and it is a course of action we cannot pursue. Mind you, they are not trying to pursue comprehensive tax reform. No. They are not trying to fix this Byzantine-era Tax Code which occupies tens of thousands of pages. What they are doing instead is just to raise taxes right now so they can get their way right now, so they can cover the shortfall that exists right now because of a chronic failure by Congress over time to set and stick to spending priorities. Well, the vast majority of Republicans are committed not to raise taxes--not on anyone. There are some very good reasons for it. First, the Federal Government has proven its inadequacy in this area. Congress has proven time and time again that the money it takes from the American people, from hard-working taxpayers, is not always spent carefully. In fact, it has been spending more than it takes in for so long people almost cannot remember a time when Congress routinely balanced its budget. This is a problem, and it is a problem that should not be fixed by taxing the same people who are already paying this bill even more. This is not the fault of the American people, and the job of fixing it lies right here in Congress--not with the American people. Second, from the CBO to the IMF to the Federal Reserve to Ernst & Young, experts around the world are warning of the dire economic consequences that await us if we raise taxes. We cannot allow it to happen. We have had over $4 trillion added to the national debt during this President's administration. At the same time, we have had unemployment exceeding 8 percent for the last 41 consecutive months. Nearly 13 million Americans are currently out of work, and millions more are underemployed and looking for more work. We cannot allow this to continue. I would add here that there is a certain irony in the President's proposal to increase taxes on some Americans while leaving the necessary tax relief in place for others. While purporting to help hard-working Americans, this approach would actually have the opposite effect, hurting most--many of those Americans who can least afford the hit right now. A new study from Ernst & Young reveals that this tax hike--the tax hike that hits some Americans but not others--would kill 710,000 jobs. These are people who cannot afford to lose their jobs. These are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. These are not CEOs. These are not the top 1 percent. These are hard-working Americans who cannot afford to lose a job. We cannot let a tax hike bring about that kind of terrible consequence. Democrats will assure you that their tax hikes are all about reducing the deficit. That is curious because their proposal would leave 94 percent of this year's deficit intact, which makes it an inherently unserious proposal insofar as it relates to deficit reduction. Further, the President's own 10-year budget, which includes massive tax increases, by the way, still adds $11 trillion to the national debt. I really do appreciate the fact that the President is finally talking about these issues--issues that have long gone unaddressed and need to be addressed--but he cannot look the American people in the eyes and tell them he is doing something about the debt when his own budget, while raising taxes, nearly doubles our already sprawling national debt over the next 10 years. Republicans have proposals. We have proposals to reform the Tax Code, reduce the deficit, and to do so in ways that will grow the economy, not cause it to contract. I have an amendment I hope will get considered in the next week or two that would permanently keep tax rates at their current levels so American families and businesses can know what to expect. It would also eliminate the death tax, and it would stop the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which is quickly becoming the middle-income penalty tax. These measures and others would go a long way--a long way--toward improving our economy and getting the American people back to work again. If my friends on the other side of the aisle disagree, as is their right to do, then let's come together and work to find some common ground. These election-year antics and distractions are not what the American people sent us here to do, and the longer we wait before enacting real reform, the worse the problem is going to get. I would now like to turn the time over to my friend, the junior Senator from Missouri, who has fought long and hard on these issues, who will wrap this up for us.

Mr. LEE. That is right. I think that is the point that often goes missing in this debate, which is that when people talk about wanting to raise takes on one group of Americans and not increasing them on another, that causes problems. And we are concerned about job creation. We are not concerned about any one particular group, we are concerned about Americans as a whole--most importantly, about those who are most vulnerable, those who can least afford to lose their jobs.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on June 30, Trooper Aaron Beesley responded to a call to rescue two teenagers stranded on Mount Olympus in the Wasatch Mountains near Salt Lake City. As a part of the search and rescue helicopter unit, he helped load the two teenagers into the helicopter, ensuring their own safety before his own. When the helicopter pilot had secured the hikers, he went back for Trooper Beesley, only to find that he had fallen down the 60-foot cliff face. A hero fell from Mount Olympus. Someone once said, ``A hero is always remembered, but legends never die.'' Aaron Beesley woke up that morning already a hero in every sense of the word, and he fell that night into legend, a legend of service and sacrifice that will live far beyond his mortality. His mother recalled that from the age of 5 Aaron had aspired to be a firefighter. His greatest ambition was to protect others from harm and danger. He attended the police academy after serving a LDS mission in Oakland, CA, and was then hired by the Utah Highway Patrol. There he committed to ``face danger with confidence, resolution and bravery'' and to ``meet the service needs of everyone encountered.'' These principles were a part of Aaron's nature long before he became a trooper. He may have fallen in the line of duty, but for him, this duty was his life. He saw the world through the lens of a hero, constantly seeking opportunities to help and serve others long after the workday ended. At his funeral service, Aaron's mother Laretta Beesley said, ``Aaron was a hero every day of his life.'' Based on his rescue record, lifesaving awards, medal of excellence, and the tremendous words of praise from his family and coworkers, I believe his mother's description is perfect. Aaron will be remembered as a man of many hats. He is survived by his wife Christine and sons Austin, 7, and twins Derek and Preston, 4. They will remember him as a loving husband and father. His brother Arik remembers him as a hero, recalling the countless phone calls they shared in which Aaron provided a play-by-play account of his latest rescue. His parents remember him as a clever practical joker. As a child he once tricked a group of neighborhood boys into performing his loathed chore of stacking wood by telling them how much fun it would be. His mother lovingly remembers how he watched them do it for him with a sly smile, periodically expressing how much he would love to be stacking wood too. His coworkers and friends remember him as a genius who could fix anything, from neighbors' broken electronics to highway patrol communications equipment. Aaron was even able to perform the necessary maintenance on the patrol's air fleet, saving the department thousands of dollars. His colleague Steve Winward remembers him as an inventor, designing cell phone applications for helicopter flight navigation and field sobriety tests. Mr. President I pay tribute today to Aaron Beesley not simply to mourn his loss but to celebrate his life, his willingness to perform his duty and serve others. Sharon and I extend our condolences to Christine, Austin, Derek and Preston and praise them for their courage at this difficult time. Aaron truly remembered service before self, as do all who wake up every morning prepared to give their lives for those they serve. I pray that his family, friends, and loved ones may feel an outpouring of love and support from grateful citizens around the country and that they may forever remember Aaron with the tremendous pride his legacy deserves.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to George Washington: ``Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.'' Before their faces were chiseled into monuments and printed on dollar bills, many of the patriots who founded our Nation and who fought and died for the freedoms we cherish were simple farmers. Washington, Jefferson, and others like them were doing much more than just growing food to live off of; they were laying the groundwork for a culture of self-reliance that played a role in America's fight for independence and its sustained growth over the past 200 years. While technology has changed the focus of our economy from agriculture to a variety of other sectors, it is crucial that we remember the principles set forth by our Founders. For the past 100 years, the 4-H Club of Utah has provided youth with the opportunity to cultivate and continue our Nation's rich agricultural heritage while simultaneously training them in the technologies and advancements of the future. Thus, Utah 4-H's centennial theme--``Celebrating the Past, Creating the Future''--is particularly pertinent. I find it appropriate to commemorate Utah 4-H at its centennial in the halls and records of Congress. The four H's stand for Head, Heart, Hands and Health. The head represents the quest for knowledge, the heart symbolizes love and service to others, hands signify hard work and the development of diligence, and health emphasizes the importance of healthy habits and a healthy lifestyle. While the educational arm of the program was originally centered in farm communities, the program has extended far beyond that with over a third of its members living in metropolitan and suburban areas. Roughly the same percent of members represent minority populations. The express mission of 4-H is to ``engage youth to reach their fullest potential while advancing the field of youth development,'' and as its motto states, ``to make the best better.'' The 4-H of Utah strives to broaden horizons and connect participating youth with greater opportunities than would otherwise be available to them. Scholarships are offered to high school seniors and college students in need to allow them to take their 4-H education and skills to college and beyond. The 4-H Club was established in Utah in 1912 but its roots run much deeper--back to the 1888 founding of the ``Agricultural College of Utah,'' which is now known as Utah State University. The purpose of the 4-H Club was to educate youth about new agricultural technology so that they might pass them to their own farm communities and improve the State's agricultural industry. By 1931, Utah's 4-H Club was declared to be the fastest growing in the Nation, and now in 2012, it serves over 75,000 youth. From holding a strict focus on agriculture, cooking, and home economics, 4-H has grown and now offers over a thousand programs ranging from robotics to skateboarding. The program has succeeded in large part due to the dedication of a group of volunteers who are passionate about the work of 4-H. I commend and express gratitude to the 9,500 current 4-H volunteers, and the tens of thousands that came before them. I owe Utah 4-H a personal debt of gratitude, as my own chief of staff, Spencer Stokes, is a program alumnus who has brought skills and principles he learned in 4-H to his leadership role in my office. The world is no longer a simple place for the youth of our Nation. They face a cloudy economic horizon with an excess of workers competing for a dearth of jobs. 4-H gives participating youth a tremendous advantage and competitive edge from a young age--helping them build healthy relationships, cultivate fruitful habits and hobbies, and learn skills to take into their communities and industries. 4-H has played a tremendous role in making Utah a better place for our youth and making our youth better contributors to our communities around the Nation.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the United States Air Force has always been on the cutting edge of technology, ensuring the safety of Americans from a wide variety of threats. The advancement and sustainment of this technology has come as a result of the hard work of visionary leaders in research and intelligence sectors of the United States Armed Services. One of these visionary leaders is Jim Sutton, the Director of Plans and Programs for the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base. After an honorable and decorated career, Jim is retiring from public service. I wish to honor him today. The Ogden Air Logistics Center is one of the United States foremost warfighter sustainment organizations, with management and maintenance responsibilities for some of the world's most advanced weapons systems. Their motto is ``Innovative leaders for the defense technologies of the future; combining action and quality to ensure the systems you depend on are done right!'' Jim Sutton has served as the director of Plans and Programs at the Ogden Air Logistics Center. During his tenure, he has turned the center into a model of fiscal responsibility and efficiency. Jim also oversaw the Enhanced Use Lease Program Management Office, which manages real estate transactions authorized by the Department of Defense Leasing Authority. I should note that Hill's Enhanced Use Lease Program Management office is the largest in the country. During his tenure as director he simultaneously served as a crucial advisor to the Utah Defense Alliance, where his colleagues note his instrumental leadership role during the Base Realignment and Closure act of 2005. One of Jim's crowning achievements at Hill is Falcon Hill, a state of the art National Aerospace Research Park located within the base itself. Jim's career began long before he joined the directorate at the Ogden Air Logistics Center. His active duty began over 30 years ago in 1980. During that time he served in important judicial advocacy positions at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, the United States Air Forces European Headquarters in Germany, the Pentagon, San Antonio Contracting Center, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Air Force Materiel Command at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and Scott Air Force base in Illinois. He has received several awards and commendations, including the Air Force Commendation Medal in 1983, five Meritorious Service Medals, the Albert M. Kuhlfeld Award for Outstanding Young Judge Advocate in both 1986 and 1990, the Outstanding Career Judge Advocate in 1996, the Stuart Reichart Award for Outstanding Senior Attorney in 1999, and the Outstanding Achievement Award for work from 2001-2003. On a more personal level, coworkers describe Jim as a man of integrity, who fought for causes important to Utah and to the advancement and sustainment of Air Force technology. He has been a tremendous ally between the armed services and the state of Utah, working closely with Utah's congressional delegation in the advancement and progress of Hill Air Force Base. He has made it his personal mission to both sustain the viability of Hill Air Force Base and fight for its continued advancement. The base is now one of the top employers in Utah, providing jobs for over 23,000 Utahns. He has brought tremendous military credibility and knowledge to the state of Utah and will remain a respected and beloved authority to Utah's armed services community. Jim's personal efforts have contributed to the advancement and sustainment of our nation's military technology, namely our highly technical weapons systems. The people of the United States owe Jim a tremendous debt of gratitude for his dedication and service. Sharon and I extend our best wishes to Jim and his family as they begin a new chapter in their lives.