Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in a piece of legislation of this size, this scope, and this magnitude, there is always much to praise. Unfortunately, from time to time there is much to criticize. Specifically, I rise today to try to correct one major mistake in this bill. As currently written, it permits the Department of Housing and Urban Development to proceed to the implementation of its radical new regulation, the insultingly misnamed affirmatively furthering fair housing rule, or AFFH. Proponents of AFFH, including President Obama, claim that AFFH fulfills the original purpose and promise of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The truth is, HUD's new housing rule isn't the fulfillment but a betrayal of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act was to protect the God-given right of individuals and families, regardless of their skin color or their ethnicity, to buy and rent homes where they please. By contrast, the explicit purpose of HUD's new rule is to empower Federal bureaucrats to dictate where a community's low-income residents will live. This is not what progress looks like. AFFH not only grants unprecedented new powers to HUD--powers that were not contemplated and have no legitimate basis in the Fair Housing Act of 1968--but it will ultimately hurt the very people it purports to help--public housing residents, especially African-American public housing residents who too often find themselves trapped in dysfunctional, broken neighborhoods. To make matters worse, this new rule will end America's unique and uniquely successful commitment to localism and diversity and make neighborhood-level construction decisions subject to the whims of future Presidents. If this past year has not yet done enough to give you pause about handing over such power to the executive branch, then you are not paying close enough attention. I am offering an amendment today, No. 3897, that would prohibit HUD from using Federal taxpayer money to carry out the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. The House of Representatives has already passed this amendment twice and will likely do so again in the near future. We should follow the lead of the House of Representatives in this regard. Here is how the rule works. AFFH requires cities and towns across the country to audit their own local housing policies under close supervision by HUD regulators who may have never lived anywhere near the city, town, or municipality in question. If any aspect of a community's housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD bureaucrats' expansive definition of ``fair housing,'' the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community's housing practices according to the preferences and priorities set not by the community in question but by the bureaucrats--the bureaucrats in Washington, possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Critics of AFFH often say and I have said myself that this rule turns HUD into a sort of national zoning board with the power to unilaterally rewrite local zoning laws and land use regulations in every city and town in America. But that is not quite how the rule works, and that is why Senator Collins' amendment would not do anything to prevent the implementation of the very things we worry about with AFFH. In the 10 months since the rule was finalized, it has become clear that the mechanics of AFFH are much more underhanded and subversive than critics have often claimed. Under the new rule, HUD doesn't replace local housing authorities, it conscripts them into its service. This gets to the very heart of the difference between my amendment and the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. The danger of AFFH is not that HUD will direct local governments and public housing authorities to make specific changes to their zoning policies; it will just threaten them by tying obedience to Federal community development block grants. Obedience to the commands of Federal regulators will be a conditional precedent of sorts to the ongoing receipt of Federal funds under the CDBG Program. CDBG is a Federal grant program controlled by HUD, one that allocates some $3 billion per year to local governments to help them address a variety of community development needs, including providing adequate and affordable public housing for their community. Traditionally, local officials have been more or less free to use their CDBG funds according to their own community's unique needs and specific priorities, but under AFFH, HUD officials will withhold local government CDBG funds unless that local government adopts HUD's preferred housing policies. Predictably, proponents of the rule claim this will be a collaborative process, with local government officials in the driver's seat while the bureaucrats at HUD merely provide support and guidance, but the 10-month track record of AFFH suggests that precisely the opposite will be true. In fact, I have already heard from the housing authority of Salt Lake County, predicting that the cost of complying with AFFH will stretch their already thin resources, add hundreds of hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate, low-cost housing to their community. The problem with HUD's new rule has nothing to do with the stated intentions behind it. In a press release announcing the finalization of AFFH, HUD Secretary Julian Castro said: ``Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future.'' I completely agree. There is no disputing that the neighborhood in which a child grows up might affect his educational, social, and professional outcomes in the future. Nor is there any disagreement that far too many children today are raised in dysfunctional neighborhoods because it is the only place their parents can find affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing is not a new problem in America--just ask anyone who has ever had to pay rent in one of the major metropolitan areas controlled by the Democratic Party--but neither is the solution. The best way to make housing more affordable is to allow more housing to be built, and the best way to help low-income citizens find fair and affordable housing is to empower them to live in a neighborhood that meets their needs. The history of Chicago is instructive here. In the 2000s, the Chicago city government demolished many of its public housing facilities without any kind of a plan to replace them. Those with the resources and wherewithal to choose where to live moved to places where housing was cheap and economic opportunity was plentiful, but the less fortunate were relocated to more remote, less prosperous towns, towns like Dubuque, IA, at the behest of--who else?--the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2008 the city of Dubuque was struggling to meet the needs of its own public housing residents. Yet in stepped the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development declaring that the city's housing policies would fail to meet the agency's fair housing standards and that therefore the city would be ineligible to receive Federal funding from HUD unless the local government actively recruited Section 8 voucher holders from Chicago. Unwilling to lose access to Federal funding on which the city had come to rely, the small Iowa town acquiesced to HUD's demands--aggressive and unacceptable as they were. This imposed an enormous administrative burden on the city's resource- strapped housing agencies, but HUD's real victims were Chicago's public housing residents who were forcibly displaced to an unknown town 200 miles from the city they used to call home. Unless we pass this amendment to defund the disastrously misguided AFFH rule, this is what the future of public housing in America will look like. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and reaffirming that low-income families are not statistics to be managed by distant bureaucrats; they are human beings--our neighbors in need who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on March 14, 2016, the Salt Lake Community College men's basketball team walked into the Hutchinson Sports Arena in Hutchinson, KS, to play their first game in the NJCAA national tournament, the ``Big Dance'' for America's community colleges, ranked 13th out of 24 highly talented and competitive teams. Six days and five games later, the Salt Lake Bruins walked out as national champions, having bested the home team, Hutchinson Community College, 74 points to 64, in front of a sold-out crowd of more than 6,000 fans. On behalf of the people of Utah, I commend the Salt Lake Community College 2015-2016 men's basketball team for their well-deserved championship. In particular, I applaud the Bruins not just because they won, but because of how they won. When a team is awarded the national title after winning 5 games in 6 days, beating the opposition by an average of more than 18 points, as the Bruins did in Hutchinson, it can be tempting to look back at the season and see a preordained path to the championship. But, as head coach Todd Phillips surely knows, there are no guaranteed victories in basketball, only earned ones, even for a team as storied and successful as Salt Lake Community College. Indeed, the story of the Salt Lake Bruins' championship season is one not of assured success, but obstacles overcome. At the end of the regular season, the Bruins had lost five of their last seven games, finishing third in the Scenic West Athletic Conference, their worst performance in Coach Phillips' five seasons with the team. Entering the regional tournament on a three-game losing streak, the team seemed to be fraying at the edges, their season on the brink of irrelevance. Something wasn't right. The team was playing well below its potential, and everyone knew it. The easy response for the players and the coaches would have been to point fingers, assign blame, and begin looking forward to the fresh start always promised by the next season waiting around the corner. But that is not the Salt Lake way. Instead of giving up, the team doubled down, rebuilding their confidence and rededicating themselves to each other and to their season. And they did this as all good teams must do: together. The Salt Lake Bruins' always have plenty of stand-out athletes, and this season was no exception, but the 12-man roster that took home the national title truly played and won as a team. To the 16 men who earned this championship, as players and as coaches, congratulations. Your legendary season--and the teamwork that made it possible--is an inspiration to the Nation and one of the many reasons I am proud to call Utah home.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a man who was truly a giant in my home State of Utah and in this institution, the U.S. Senate. He was a friend to everyone he met and someone whose life of service to the people of Utah we celebrate. At the same time, we mourn his passing: Senator Robert F. Bennett. Senator Bennett loved the political arena. Though his heart was always with his family in Utah, he spent many years working on Capitol Hill in both the Senate and the House, and later as a congressional liaison for the Department of Transportation. He also spent many years in business, where his management abilities and his keen mind helped build a successful corporation and earn him awards such as Inc. Magazine's ``Entrepreneur of the Year.'' But Senator Bennett's true passion was for sound public policy, for the development of good policy. He cared little about who wrote policy, and he cared even less for who would get the credit for good policy. So long as wise politics were enacted into law, he was happy. That was his objective, and it was a noble one at that. This was apparent to me after a memorable conversation I had with him in 2010, just a few days before our State's Republican nominating convention, at which we were both candidates. I was in the lobby of a local radio and television station, waiting to go on the air and watching the national news on a large television screen. I don't remember the exact issue that was being discussed, but I remember the general topic, and I will never forget what happened as I watched this broadcast. Senator Bennett walked into the lobby and, seeing me, simply strolled over to stand next to me. To be honest, I was anticipating the type of understandably awkward interaction that might occur between candidates near the end of a heated political contest. Instead, with his charismatic and characteristic charm and affability, he quickly put me at ease by nodding toward the screen and saying rather diplomatically, ``You know, there's a pretty good chance that you will be the person who has to deal with this issue.'' Having gracefully diffused the situation and diffused any tension that might have otherwise been between us at that moment, he proceeded to share some words of wisdom and personal insights, imparting to me some of the lessons he had learned from his own experience on that matter. It was clear to me that he had not only thought long and hard about it but that he was ultimately less concerned with who addressed the issue, less concerned with who would get credit for fixing the problem, and more concerned with ensuring that the problem was dealt with thoughtfully, wisely, and in a manner most likely to result in a good outcome for the American people. In Senator Bennett's view, there was no such thing as a political opponent; there were only potential political allies. Although Senator Bennett was a serious statesman, he was also one who did not take himself too seriously. This is one of the many reasons people everywhere were drawn to him. Many Utahns will remember his flair for self-deprecating humor emblazoned on his campaign billboards in 2004. Summarizing Senator Bennett's most distinctive qualities, one billboard read: ``Bold. Brilliant. Beanpole.'' In a slight variation on the same theme, another one of his billboards read: ``Big Heart. Big Ideas. Big Ears.'' And perhaps everyone's favorite declared: ``Better looking than Abraham Lincoln,'' adding parenthetically, ``just barely.'' In the political arena, where inflated egos loom large, Bob Bennett was a breath of fresh air. Senator Bennett's command of public policy was legendary. He could speak extemporaneously and at length on everything from the Federal budget, to Utah's changing demographics, to business trends, and he could do so without any notes. He was a master storyteller, one who had the uncanny ability to entertain and challenge his audience at the same time--the result of a lifetime of learning and profound thinking. He always maintained an open mind, never unwilling to rethink policy issues in light of new information. These qualities are but a few of the reasons he was a trusted colleague, and he was trusted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle of this Chamber. Although much has been written about his public and his political accomplishments, there was a side to him that does not receive the attention it probably deserves. A day in the life of a U.S. Senator is often stressful and invariably unpredictable. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of error is high, and as one of his staffers once told me, ``There were plenty of times that scheduling mistakes were made, and anger at us''--the staff--``certainly would have been justified.'' But these same staffers also said that in 18 years in the U.S. Senate, they never saw Bob Bennett get angry or even so much as raise his voice at any of his staff members. He was always kind, patient, and understanding with them, and they were committed and loyal to him in return. I am convinced that one of the reasons so many Members of the Senate trusted Bob Bennett so completely was that they saw how his own staff treated him and how he returned that trust. I have been the beneficiary of the staff that he built. Some of my very best staffers were those whom I hired from Senator Bennett's office, who not only helped me get my office up and running but helped keep it running efficiently and effectively as the trained professionals they were, having been mentored by one of the greats of this institution. Senator Bennett was a man of the utmost integrity and was the same calm, deliberate, and thoughtful person whether speaking in public or speaking to close confidants. At 6 feet 6 inches, he towered over most people, but that didn't prevent him from meeting people where they were, treating everyone with dignity and respect, and exhibiting true understanding and true compassion for all with whom he interacted. Whether he was talking with ranchers in Iron County or consulting a grieving parent visiting him in his Salt Lake office or debating the Chairman of the Federal Reserve during a Banking Committee hearing, Bob Bennett treated everyone the same--with kindness, respect, and concern. He often quoted President Reagan's famous aphorism that ``there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' But Senator Bennett didn't just recite those words; he lived them. They were part of who he was and what he did. On more than one occasion, he worked for months on end to craft a legislative solution to a difficult issue, only to discover at the last moment that the price of its passage would be to give all the credit to someone else. Because his objective was--first and foremost--to make sure the right thing was done, this was a price Senator Bennett was always willing to pay. This was an obstacle from which he never shied away. This was something that never deterred him from doing the right thing. Since the election of 2010, I have been asked countless times about my relationship with Senator Bennett. My answer invariably reminds me of the great privilege it is to serve the State of Utah in his seat. Our conversations were always meaningful and focused on innovative approaches to dealing with difficult and important policy issues. A consummate statesman and a classic gentleman, he always made clear to me that good policy is always good politics in the end. Senator Bennett's achievements were numerous, and he will be remembered for his tremendous impact on the State of Utah. However, I am certain that if he were to make a list of his greatest accomplishments, it would likely say nothing about his business successes or his political endeavors. Rather, it would focus entirely on his family--on his dear wife Joyce, the 6 children they raised together, and on their 20 grandchildren. Senator Bennett truly was, in every way, a giant. He was a man of integrity, a man whose word was truly his bond, and a man who left both the State of Utah and his country better than he found them. He was a man who had a firm and unwavering commitment to his faith in God and was true to that faith until the very end. It is my hope and prayer that Senator Bennett's wife Joyce, his children, and his grandchildren are comforted at this difficult time, knowing that our State and our country are forever grateful for their husband, father, and grandfather's exemplary life of service. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, of the words the American people frequently use to describe Congress today--at least one of the words that is appropriate to repeat on the Senate floor--one of the most common and accurate is ``unaccountable.'' Year after year, hard-working men and women across this great country bristle under dysfunctional, costly, and burdensome laws made right here in Washington, DC, and day after day, many of them do what Americans have always done when faced with an out-of-touch government. They contact their elected lawmakers to voice their concerns about those laws and to push for change of those laws and the process by which they are made. Ask anyone who has ever called, written, or emailed their Member of Congress what happens next. It is consistent. It is predictable. Blame is shifted; fingers are pointed; scapegoats of every variety imaginable are brought forth to defend those who are charged with making the laws from the consequences of their own handiwork. This is the very definition of unaccountability, and it pervades the culture of Washington, DC, because Congress has allowed it to infect our laws and our institutions--the very institutions by which those laws are made. Many Americans assume that they are being lied to when their elected lawmakers blame someone else for the laws that are raising the cost of living, eating away at their paychecks, and generally making it harder for individual Americans and families to realize the American dream. But the truth is actually even more troubling than that. Most of the items on the Federal Government's interminable list of do's and don'ts governing nearly every activity of human life are not in fact written, debated, discussed, and passed by Congress; rather, they are imposed unilaterally by unelected bureaucrats in one of the executive branch's administrative agencies. This is true even for what are called major rules, which are regulations that cost the American people more than $100 million each year in compliance costs. For instance, look at the Department of Energy, whose appropriations we are currently considering. In a single year, 2015, the costs of the regulations issued by the Department of Energy exceeded $15 billion-- $15 billion. In 1 year, it cost the American people $15 billion to comply with the regulations issued by this single bureaucratic agency-- by this single Federal Department, the U.S. Department of Energy. Even if we were to agree with every cent of that very onerous regulatory burden, we should all be able to recognize the danger of allowing one group of people, consisting of individuals who never have had to stand for election, to squeeze $15 billion out of the pocketbooks of the American people. That is why I have submitted this amendment, No. 3856, which would restrict the Department of Energy from spending any funds to implement or enforce regulations whose compliance costs exceed $100 million, unless specifically approved by Congress. Unfortunately, regrettably, tragically, this amendment was blocked from consideration by one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for reasons that appear to be completely unrelated to the merits of this amendment. Nevertheless, I would like to take a moment to explain how my amendment works. This amendment would have provided immediate, much needed financial relief to the budgets of hard-working families and businesses all across the country. It would protect them from the costs of two major rules recently proposed by the Department of Energy--rules that impose new energy-efficiency standards on ceiling fans and commercial packaged boilers. Just like the Department of Energy's ban on incandescent light bulbs, under these rules, Americans would no longer be able to buy ceiling fans or commercial boilers that do not adhere to the government's strict new standards. Proponents of the rules think this is a good thing. As former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said about the light bulb ban back in 2011, ``We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.'' This government-knows-best approach to regulation is not only arrogant--it is not only off-puttingly paternalistic--it is detached from the economic realities of American life today. Most Americans may buy less energy-efficient ceiling fans than most Washington bureaucrats, not because they are less intelligent or less concerned about saving energy or less concerned about protecting the environment but because it is what they can afford. The additional costs of these energy-efficiency standards are not insignificant. In fact, it is estimated that these two rules would cost American families and businesses more than $3 billion. Today, the Department of Energy has the power to impose these rules on the public, and there is very little Congress can do about it. But under my amendment, the two rules would not go into effect unless and until Congress voted to approve them--unless and until Congress affirmatively enacted them into law and allowed them to be signed into law by the President. This simple, commonsense reform is modeled on the REINS Act, a bill that requires congressional approval for all major rules issued by all executive agencies across the entire Federal Government. Last July, the House of Representatives passed the REINS Act by a strong vote of 243 to 165, and it currently has 37 cosponsors in the Senate. Support for the legislation is growing because it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the moral and material problems of hiding the regulatory process in the nameless, faceless bureaucracy. Everyone here knows the regulatory burden in America has become untenable. Every single day, each of us hears from our constituents about how stifling government regulations have become. The data tell the same story. Just today we saw that the first quarter of 2016 was the third in a row in which private domestic investment has shrunk. This is disappointing, but it is not surprising. According to a recent study by the Mercatus Center, in 2012, ``the economy was $4 trillion smaller than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth since 1980.'' That works out to about $13,000 of lost earnings for every man, woman, and child in America. Some of my colleagues may think the costs of our regulatory system are defensible. I certainly don't. But I know there are different opinions out there, and that is exactly the point of the REINS Act. That is exactly the point of this amendment--this amendment which has been improperly blocked. Under the broken status quo, Members of Congress can claim innocence--and they regularly do--when an executive agency imposes a costly and controversial regulations on the country. In fact, many Members of Congress not only claim innocence, but they claim almost victim status. They behave almost as if we were a victim, as if we were someone being acted upon. We don't even have to debate it. It just kicks into law by itself. It is self-executing. This may be convenient for those of us in Washington, but it is fundamentally and unacceptably unfair to the American people. We don't make the law this way in this country, but that is now how our system is set up. It is time that we change it. If Congress is ever going to win back the trust of the American people, we must prove that we are in fact trustworthy--trustworthy to do what we are supposed to do and trustworthy to make law--because that is why we exist as a part of our government. The best way to do that is to make ourselves once again accountable for making the laws, passing the laws, and standing accountable for the laws of this country. This amendment would be a significant step toward making Congress accountable again. I regret--I deeply regret--that it was blocked, but I look forward to advancing similar reforms in the future because the idea of making Congress accountable isn't just a good idea; it is burned deeply, indelibly within our constitutional system. It is no accident that the very first clause of the first section of the first article of the Constitution says, ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' All legislative powers--that means all Federal law in this system is vested in a Congress of the United States. We are not supposed to delegate that to someone else.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on this special occasion, I would like to thank each and every one of Utah's more than 47,000 Vietnam veterans, as well as their spouses, for their service to our great State and this exceptional Nation. You answered the call of duty at a time of national need, and your courage is an inspiration to us all. Over the next several weeks, friends, neighbors, and families will gather in communities across our great State to hold special commemorative ceremonies in honor of the men and women who served in the Vietnam war. But the people of Utah understand that our veterans deserve our gratitude and support, not just on special occasions, but every day. Utah's communities, businesses, and public institutions are committed to ensuring that Utah is a place where veterans have the resources and support they need to lead fulfilling lives and achieve a high standard of living, whether they have just returned to civilian life or have been out of the service for 50 years. In Salt Lake City, Provo, and St. George, the Beehive State has three of the best veterans centers in the Nation that provide critical mental health and counseling services to veterans and their families. And the people at the Utah Department of Veterans and Military Affairs, the host of today's commemorative ceremony, are faithful, tireless advocates of Utah's veterans. The work of Utah's VMA and the brave veterans they represent is one of the reasons why I am so proud to call Utah home. May God bless the veterans of Utah, and may God bless these United States of America.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted to advance President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Education, Dr. John King. Tonight the nomination is set to come before the Senate not for a robust debate but for a hasty vote, and by all accounts confirmation is expected. I rise to oppose the nomination of Dr. King and to urge my colleagues to join me in voting against his confirmation as Secretary of Education. I have studied Dr. King's professional record--most notably, his time in New York's Department of Education. I have reviewed the transcripts of his confirmation hearing. Based on the policies he has supported, the bipartisan opposition he has invited throughout his career, and his uncompromising commitment to the designs of bureaucrats and central planners over the lived experiences of parents and teachers, I believe it would be a grave error for the Senate to confirm Dr. King's nomination at this time. Indeed, I believe it would be difficult for anyone to support Dr. King's nomination on the basis of his record. The problem is not that Dr. King lacks experience. On paper, you might even think that Secretary of Education is the natural next step in his career. After 3 years as a teacher and a brief stint at managing charter schools, Dr. King has risen through the ranks of the education bureaucracy, climbing from one political appointment to the next, but do we think that someone who has spent more time in a government agency than in a classroom is best suited to oversee Federal education policy? More to the point, what matters aren't the jobs someone has held but the policies that person has advanced. This is the problem with Dr. King's nomination. Look closely at his record, especially look closely at the 3\1/2\ years he spent as New York's education commissioner, where he forced on an unwilling school system unpopular Common Core curriculum and standards, an inflexible testing regime, and a flawed teacher evaluation system. All of this proves that Dr. King is the standard bearer of No Child Left Behind--the discredited K-12 regime that has become synonymous with dysfunctional education policy in classrooms and households all across America. This is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of New York's parents, teachers, legislators, school board members, and superintendents. The vast majority of them opposed and protested against Dr. King and the policies he championed while at the helm of the State's education department. This Congress and President Obama have promised to move Federal education policy in the opposite direction established by No Child Left Behind. Under these circumstances, Dr. King--the embodiment of the failed K-12 status quo--is not the person who should be put in charge of the Department of Education. If confirmed, Dr. King would serve as the head of the Department of Education for 10 months, until January 2017, when the next President is sworn into office. This may sound like an insignificant amount of time for a Cabinet Secretary to serve, but in reality the next 10 months are crucially important to the future of Federal education policy in America. Just a few months ago, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA--a bill that reauthorized the law governing Federal K-12 education policy. Now the Department of Education will begin implementing the ESSA, which will set the course of the Department for years to come. So what happens over the next 10 months within the Department of Education will have sweeping, far- reaching consequences for America's schools, teachers, and students-- consequences that will affect not just the quality of education students receive as children but the quality of life available to them as adults. One of the most serious flaws of the ESSA, and one of the primary reasons I voted against the bill, is that it reinforces the same K-12 model that has trapped so many kids in failing schools and confined America's education system to a state of mediocrity for half a century. This is a model that concentrates authority over education decisions in the hands of Federal politicians and bureaucrats instead of parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards. There is no government official who is granted more discretion or more authority under the ESSA than the Secretary of Education. The ESSA purports to reduce the Federal Government's control over America's classrooms by returning decisionmaking authority to parents, educators, and local officials. For instance, there are several provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Education from controlling State education plans or coercing States into adopting Federal standards and testing regimes, but when you look at the fine print, you see that in most cases these prohibitions against Federal overreach contain no enforcement mechanisms--only vague, aspirational statements encouraging the Secretary to limit his own powers. So the question is, If confirmed as Secretary of Education, would Dr. King adhere to the spirit of the ESSA and voluntarily return decisionmaking authority to parents, teachers, and local officials? There is little reason to believe he would. Dr. King's former boss and would-be predecessor, Arne Duncan, certainly had no qualms about violating similar prohibitions against Federal overreach found in No Child Left Behind, nor has he shied away from advertising the fact that ESSA would function in much the same way as No Child Left Behind. In an interview with POLITICO, Duncan discussed whether the ESSA would, in fact, reduce the Federal Government's control over America's classrooms. He was asked: ``How do you respond to the notion that you've had your wings clipped on your way out the door?'' This was Duncan's response: ``Candidly, our lawyers are much smarter than many of the folks who were working on this bill.'' In other words, Congress can write whatever bill it wants, and the administration's lawyers will be able to figure out a way to implement it according to the preferences of the Cabinet Secretaries and their armies of bureaucrats. This is certainly a brazen admission of bureaucratic arrogance by former Secretary Duncan, but it is exactly in line with the way Dr. King approached his job as education commissioner of New York just a few years ago. Under Dr. King's leadership, New York became one of the first States to implement Common Core standards and testing requirements starting in 2011. Dr. King was one of the only education commissioners in the country to insist on rolling out the tests before teachers had been given adequate time to adapt to the new curriculum imposed by Common Core. To the surprise of no one--except perhaps for Dr. King--the results were a disaster. The 2013 Common Core tests only widened the achievement gap and sparked the Opt Out movement in New York, which mobilized 65,000 students to opt out of the Common Core tests in 2014 and more than 200,000 students to opt out in 2015. To make matters worse, around the same time teachers were being forced to test their students on material they hadn't been given time to incorporate into their curriculum, Dr. King implemented a teacher evaluation system that relied heavily on these distorted student test scores. This evaluation system was so unpopular that in 2014 one of New York's teachers unions called for Dr. King's resignation. What is most troubling about Dr. King's tenure as education commissioner isn't that he centralized decisionmaking authority within the State's education department, imposing one-size-fits-all policies across a diverse school system. Plenty of education commissioners are guilty of the same, if not worse. No, the real problem with Dr. King's record is that he routinely and apparently as a matter of policy ignored the advice and feedback of teachers, parents, principals, and school board members. Even as his centrally planned house of cards was tumbling down around him, Dr. King stayed the course, believing against all evidence that when it comes to running a classroom, bureaucrats and politicians know better than teachers, parents, and local school boards. When the Senate confirms a Presidential nominee, we are doing more than just approving a personnel matter; we are accepting, to a degree, what that nominee stands for. As we consider this nomination, we must ask ourselves, what kind of policy do the American people want? What kind of policy do America's elementary and secondary students deserve? We know that local control over K-12 and even pre-K education is more effective than Washington, DC's, prescriptive, heavyhanded approach because we have seen it work in communities all across the country. The point isn't that there is a better way to improve America's schools but that there are 50 better ways, thousands of better ways, but Washington is standing in the way, distrustful of any alternative to the top-down education status quo. And under the leadership of Dr. King, Washington's outdated, conformist policies will continue to stand in the way. America's students deserve better than this. The least we can do is to not accept the failed status quo. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this nomination. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the opening words to the preamble of the Constitution of the United States are familiar to all of us: ``We the People.'' But what do those words mean? It was ``the People'' who established the U.S. Constitution. We established, among other things, the Senate in article I, section 1, of the Constitution. It is for ``the People'' that my colleagues and I, along with every other public official across these United States, now serve. And it was on behalf of ``the People'' that the Constitution established ``one supreme Court,'' consisting of judges appointed ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' Since the tragic passing of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the Constitution. But there should be no controversy. The text of our founding charter is clear. The President has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, and the Senate has full and complete power to reject or confirm the nominee. It is as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider--much less accept or reject--Presidential nominees. This should not be controversial. It is how virtually every student of the Constitution--and how nearly every Member of Congress--has understood the Senate's power of advice and consent for the past 228 years since the Constitution was ratified. Senator Harry Reid said in 2005: ``Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.'' Senator Pat Leahy in 2003 acknowledged that the power of ``advice and consent'' included the power to withhold consent. Then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992 argued from the floor of this Chamber that the Senate should refuse to consider a Supreme Court nominee until the people had spoken in the upcoming Presidential election. But now, with the Presidential election in full swing, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle maintain that the opposite is true. Some argue instead that the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and to vote on any candidate President Obama might eventually nominate to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. I respectfully dissent. If this a-textual and a-historical account of the Constitution were accurate--and it is not, but if it were--then prior Senates violated the Constitution when they did not cast up-or-down votes on Supreme Court nominees. Even the Standing Rules of the Senate would be themselves suspect under this theory, contemplating as they do that ``[n]ominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President. . . . '' Neither does the prospect of a temporary eight-member Supreme Court raise any significant constitutional concern or even any significant pragmatic concern for the Supreme Court of the United States. For instance, during the Supreme Court's 2010-to-2011 term, the Court decided over 30 cases with 8 or fewer Justices participating, almost entirely as a result of recusals arising, as they often do in this circumstance, from Justice Kagan's nomination. Similarly, following the retirement of Justice Powell in 1987, the Court acted on 80 cases with 8 or fewer Justices. In short, the sky does not fall when the Court operates with only eight Justices. As Justice Breyer recently stated, the work of the Court ``[f]or the most part . . . will not change.'' Now, we have to remember that any Supreme Court nominee made by President Obama would not be seated until weeks before the people choose the next President. Let me explain what I mean by that. Even if the President of the United States were to nominate someone today to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Justice Scalia, using historical averages, under any calculation of the amount of time that it typically takes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, that confirmation could not be completed until after the Supreme Court is scheduled to have heard its last oral arguments for this term--the term that began in October of 2015. What does that mean? Well, it means that for the rest of this year, the Justice couldn't participate in cases being argued this year. What that also means is that by the time the Court resumes its work and begins its next session starting in October of this year, we would be just weeks before the next Presidential election. Yet that would be the first moment at which any newly confirmed Justice would start hearing cases being argued before the Court--cases being argued on their merits for consideration before the Court--just weeks before the next Presidential election. Consider also that since the nomination of Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986, nearly 30 years ago, it has taken more than 70 days, on average, for the Senate to confirm or reject a nominee after that nominee has been submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. So, again, based on that historic average, even if the President nominated somebody today and assuming that nominee were confirmed, that individual would not be seated in time to hear or rule on any of the cases the Court is considering on the merits for its docket this year, and that would, of course, mean that the next time arguments were heard, the first time this particular Justice could participate in such arguments on the merits before the Court would be just weeks before the Presidential election. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land--a Court that considers not only the interpretation of Federal laws, statutes, and regulations in operation within the Federal Government, but also the very meaning of the Constitution itself. In light of the fact that this is a lifetime appointment to that Court and in light of the fact that the people are about to speak this November to decide who ought to occupy the Oval Office, we should, in respect and deference to the people of this great country, wait until the American people have spoken. They deserve a voice. In my view, the future of the Supreme Court is now at stake, and the election for our next President is also, of course, well underway already. So it is the people who should determine what kind of Supreme Court they wish to have. Now, the President is entitled, of course, to discharge his own constitutional authority to nominate. No one can take that from him. That belongs to him. But the Senate is equally entitled to withhold consent and to protect the people's voice. We have to remember that it was considered at the Constitutional Convention the possibility that the Senate would itself have the exclusive power to nominate executive branch officials. It was also suggested that the Senate be given a veto power over the President's appointment prerogative. Neither of those ended up in the Constitution. Instead, what ended up in the Constitution, based, I believe, on the Massachusetts Constitution, was a shared power--one in which the President has the power to nominate but does not have the power to appoint, unless or until such time as the Senate chooses to grant its advice and consent and thereby confirm a nominee put forward by the President. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, ambition must counteract ambition, and the people should decide. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was an extraordinary man whose contributions to this country and the American people, whom he faithfully served from the bench, are so prodigious that it will take generations for us to fully comprehend our debt of great gratitude to him. His untimely, recent death is a tragedy, and his legacy is a blessing to friends of freedom throughout this country and everywhere. Justice Scalia was a learned student of history and a man who relished, perhaps more than any other, a spirited, lively debate, so it is fitting that his passing has sparked a conversation in America, a spirited conversation about the constitutional powers governing the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and the historical record of Supreme Court vacancies that happen to open up during a Presidential election year. This debate gives the American people and their elected representatives in the Senate a unique opportunity to discuss our Nation's founding charter and history at a time when our collective choices have very real consequences, so it is important that this debate proceed with candor, mutual respect, and deference to the facts. In that spirit, I wish to address and correct a few of the most pernicious errors, inaccuracies, fallacies, and fabrications we have heard from some of the loudest voices in this debate over the last few days. From the outset, I have maintained that the Senate should withhold its consent of a Supreme Court nomination to fulfill Justice Scalia's seat and wait to hold any hearings on a Supreme Court nominee until the next President, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, is elected and sworn in. This position is shared by all of my Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, consistent with the Senate's powers in the appointment of Federal judges and supported by historical precedent. In response, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and many in the media have resorted to all manner of counterarguments, ranging from the historically and constitutionally inaccurate to the absurd, and in many cases, the claims made by some of my colleagues today flatly contradict their own statements from the past. I believe the plain meaning of the Constitution and the historical record are sufficiently clear to stand on their own as evidence that there is absolutely nothing unprecedented and absolutely nothing improper about the Senate choosing to withhold its consent of a President's nominee to the Supreme Court, so I would like to focus on one particular allegation offered by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. With the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, as well as their own words standing against them, many have turned to fearmongering in a last-ditch effort to win the debate. They claim that leaving Justice Scalia's seat vacant until the next President nominates a replacement would somehow inflict a profound institutional injury on the Supreme Court by disrupting the resolution of this term's cases before the Court, a term including important cases on abortion, immigration, religious liberty, and mandatory union dues, among others, ensnaring the Court in endless gridlock with an evenly split eight Justices on the bench and leaving it short-staffed for an unprecedented and potentially prolonged period. Here, the doomsayers are on weak ground, indeed. Let's look at each of these claims in turn. First, is it true--as many have claimed--that the business of the Supreme Court will be obstructed or otherwise disrupted if the Senate withholds its consent of President Obama's nominee? Absolutely not. In recent history--in fact, since the nomination of Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986--it has taken more than 70 days on average for the Senate to confirm or reject a nominee after that nominee has been formally submitted by the President to the Senate for its advice and consent--more than 70 days on average. In many cases, it has taken far longer for the Senate to grant or withhold its consent. It took this body 108 days to reject Judge Robert Bork and 99 days to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas. Presuming the modern historic average would hold true for any future nominee, even if President Obama were to announce and refer a nominee to the Senate today for our advice and consent, the process would carry through until at least early May. But, significantly, the Supreme Court stops hearing cases in April, which means that even if President Obama were to announce a nominee today, right now, and even if the Senate were to confirm that nominee in a period of time consistent with historical standards, that individual would not be seated in time to hear and rule upon any of the cases that are currently on the Court's docket or any of the cases that are before the Court in this term. In other words, it would be historically anomalous for any of the cases currently pending before the Court to be decided this term by a nine- member Supreme Court no matter what the Senate chooses to do regarding any future nominee. Let's put this in perspective. In this scenario--a scenario endorsed by Senate Democrats--it is highly unlikely that the nominee to fill Justice Scalia's seat would hear oral arguments until the beginning of October, literally just a few weeks before the Presidential election. This proves that the main argument made by President Obama and his allies is based on a myth. In their telling, the Senate's choice to withhold consent of a nominee would deny President Obama a Supreme Court Justice who will serve during his final year in the White House, but in reality, it is unlikely that the President's nominee will join the Supreme Court until the country is just weeks away from choosing President Obama's replacement. I think most Americans recognize the problem of a President having the ability to reshape the Supreme Court in his image on his way out of office, and that is exactly why the Senate is choosing to withhold its consent in this case. This is the right course not because of anything the Senate does or does not do and not because of anything the President does or does not do, it is simply a function of the unfortunate timing of Justice Scalia's death. Claims to the contrary are flatly contradicted by an empirical analysis of the Court's history. Second, the Senate's decision to withhold consent will not lead to an intractable impasse or hopeless gridlock, even if the eventual appointee were to miss the entirety of the next term, which starts in October of 2016 and runs until the end of June 2017. In each of its previous 5 terms, the current Court has decided only 16 cases on average--or 23 percent of its caseload--by a 5-to-4 majority, and Justice Scalia was 1 of the 5 Justices in the majority in those 5-to-4 cases only about half of the time on average. That means that the vacancy left by Justice Scalia would result in about eight cases out of dozens being decided by a 4-to-4 split. In fact, in the last term served by Justice Scalia, the last complete term, he was in the majority in only six of those 5-to-4 cases, and in the year before that, the preceding term, Justice Scalia's second to last term, he was in the majority in only five of the cases decided by a 5-to-4 majority. What does this mean? Well, it means that it is likely that the effect of his absence on the final vote and ultimate disposition of cases will be lower than even the average suggests. Instead of eight cases being decided by a 4-to-4 split in Justice Scalia's absence, it is likely to be closer to five or six, as it has been in the last two full terms of Justice Scalia's service on the Court. Let's not forget what should be obvious: The sky does not fall when a 4-to-4 split occurs on the Supreme Court; rather, the decision of the lower court is left standing. And if there is the prospect of a 4-to-4 split on a particularly salient matter, the Court always has the option of scheduling or rescheduling the hearing for a later time when the Court will have all nine Justices presiding and hearing the case. Finally, a vacancy on the Court lasting through the Presidential election season will have no greater effect on the Court's ability to decide cases than any number of instances in the past where the Court has had to decide matters with eight Justices or even fewer. As recently as the Court's 2010-to-2011 term, the Court had to decide over 30 cases with eight or fewer Justices, almost entirely as a result of recusals arising from Justice Kagan's nomination. Likewise, following the retirement of Justice Powell in 1987, the Court had to act on 80 cases with 8 or fewer justices. This was a result of Democratic opposition to Judge Bork and the eventual late- February confirmation of Anthony Kennedy, coupled with dozens of recusals by Kennedy and other Justices later in that term. In the October term of 1945, the Court functioned as an eight-member body while Justice Robert Jackson was serving as a prosecutor in Nuremberg, acting on a full term's caseload without him. Tellingly, when Justice Jackson expressed concern about missing so many cases and actually considered returning early for that reason, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote to encourage Justice Jackson to stay on as a prosecutor, stating that his absence was not ``sacrificing a single interest of importance.'' Compared to today, the Court had a larger workload and issued many more opinions during that term in which Justice Jackson was absent. This suggests that a vacancy of a similar duration as Jackson's full-term sabbatical would be even less damaging to the Court's functioning than the absence of Justice Jackson--an absence that, to reiterate, did not sacrifice ``a single interest of importance.'' The next President's future nominee is unlikely to miss as many cases as Justices Kennedy or Jackson missed. These are the facts, Mr. President. They can't be ignored nor can they be wished away. If we are going to have a serious, honest debate about the vacancy left by Justice Scalia's tragic passing, we must proceed on the basis of these facts. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. On behalf of Senator Rubio, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Kirkpatrick's research shows that David's disappearance in China fits the pattern of foreign national kidnappings by North Korea in East Asia since the 1970s. While this might sound strange to Americans--because it is indeed strange to us as Americans-- it is an issue with which the people of Japan and South Korea are tragically all too familiar. The circumstances of David's disappearance add a level of credibility to this theory. For instance, the area where David was traveling is a well-known thoroughfare on an underground railroad for North Korean dissidents trying to escape to Southeast Asia. As a result, this area is monitored and patrolled by North Korean Government agents who were involved in the capture of a high-level North Korean defector and his family in the area only months before August 2004. David was fluent in Korean, thanks to having spent 2 years serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea. He matched the profile of activists in this area who were thought to be assisting North Korean escapees. In a coincidental twist of fate, David disappeared only a month after Charles Robert Jenkins, an Army deserter, was released by the North Korean Government after having spent nearly 40 years imprisoned in the totalitarian state, forced to teach English to North Korean intelligence agents. An American who spoke fluent Korean would be an attractive replacement for Charles Jenkins. Three weeks after his disappearance, David's father and two of his four brothers traveled to China and retraced David's planned steps through the Tiger Leaping Gorge. The results of their factfinding mission, including their conversations with local residents, businesses, tour guides, and travelers have been shared with the State Department and detailed in an excellent piece by Chris Vogel published in Outside Magazine in 2014. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence discovered by David's father and brothers is that several people, including a trail guide who had been hiking the Tiger Leaping Gorge around the time of his disappearance, remember interacting with a young man fitting David Sneddon's description. David's family also met with the owner of a small Korean restaurant in the city of Shangri-La, a bustling tourist outpost with a convenient access to the Tiger Leaping Gorge. When she saw a photograph of David, the young restaurant owner lit up. She immediately remembered David, and for good reason. Not only did David stand out because of his fluency in Korean, but he reportedly visited the restaurant on three separate occasions over the course of 2 days while he was in that city. Indeed, according to the Outside Magazine article, the last time anyone saw David, which was on August 14, 2004, he was reportedly leaving a Korean restaurant. At first glance, this may seem like a minor detail, but seen in the right light, it is, in fact, an ominous clue. According to many regional experts, there is a historical pattern of North Korean agents using Korean-run restaurants in China, Japan, and elsewhere to prey on their targets for kidnapping and abduction. Despite these reports, there have been no further or more fruitful leads regarding David's whereabouts. People move away or change their stories. Embassy and State Department staff move to different assignments, and the trail grows cold. For nearly 12 years, along with his family, we have been looking for David. There are many people who deserve credit for the contributions they made to this effort. In particular, I wish to thank Ambassador Robert King, the special envoy for North Korean human rights issues and a longtime personal friend of mine, as well as his office, for the attention they have given to David's case and the good-faith efforts they have made over the years to try to find answers. I commend Ambassador King for his work on this complex, sensitive, and very important issue. There is still work yet to be done. An upstanding American citizen is still missing, and an aggrieved family--indeed, an entire community-- continues to wait and pray for a resolution, which is what brings us here today. The first and most important responsibility of the United States Government is to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people at home and abroad. When American citizens travel overseas, the State Department plays a critical role in fulfilling this core constitutional duty. The amendment I am filing today--which I plan to submit as a stand- alone resolution with Senators Hatch, Fischer, and Sasse--gives the sense of the Senate that the State Department, in conjunction with the intelligence community, should continue to fulfill that obligation to David Sneddon and his family. A companion bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives by my friend Congressman Chris Stewart and the rest of the Utah delegation. The State Department's responsibilities in this matter include investigating all plausible explanations behind David's disappearance and leaving no stone unturned in trying to return one of our brothers to his family. At the time of his disappearance, David had his whole life ahead of him. In fact, he was already planning for it. Before setting out to hike the Tiger Leaping Gorge on that fateful day in August of 2004, David had signed up to take the law school admissions test--the first step toward applying to law school, he had arranged business meetings back home in Utah to get an early start on pursuing his dreams of entrepreneurship, and, eager to get back to BYU's beautiful campus, he had already paid for his student housing for the upcoming fall semester, but he never had the chance to do any of those things, and the Sneddon family deserves to know why. The greatest threat to totalitarian regimes in any part of the world is the truth; that the world may learn of the horrors they perpetrate every day against their own people and that their people may learn that there is a world full of freedom and opportunity beyond the ironclad borders of their enslaved homeland. It is in pursuit of the truth--about David Sneddon's whereabouts-- that I file this amendment today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gardner and Chairman Corker for their leadership and tireless efforts within the Foreign Relations Committee in dealing with the national security challenges posed by North Korea. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I periodically receive intelligence briefings on North Korea's military capacity and the political will of North Korea's leaders to threaten the United States and our interests abroad. Based on these briefings and the extensive intelligence in forming them, I believe we need to embrace an ``all of the above'' approach to confront North Korea's continued development of ballistic missile, nuclear, and cyber technologies. These threats have become too serious to ignore and far too complex to confront with anything short of a coordinated strategy that is prepared to employ the full force of the United States Government, including all of our diplomatic, intelligence, economic, and military resources. As Americans, it can be easy for us to forget just how lucky we are to live in a free and open society. Most of us, myself included, simply have no idea of what it is like to live under a totalitarian regime like the one that has kept North Koreans in a state of impoverished servitude, cut off from the rest of the world for generations. But every so often the mask slips, and there is an event that gives the world a clue about what can happen when a nation-state operates and thrives behind a veil of mystery and secrecy. For me, and many of my fellow Utahans, one of these clues came nearly 12 years ago when a young man from Utah suddenly went missing in southern China. In August 2004, David Louis Sneddon disappeared while hiking in the Yunnan Province of China. He was 24 years old at the time and a student at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. Having spent his summer studying Mandarin in Beijing, David wrote to his family about his plans to hike the scenic Tiger Leaping Gorge along the Jinsha River in southern China. That was the last time David's family would ever hear from him. His passport and credit cards were never used again; they were never seen again. David Sneddon was never seen again. What happened to David Sneddon? To my knowledge he is the first American since the 1970s to go missing in China without an explanation. What happened to him? How can a young man, who is skilled in a country's language and knowledgeable of their culture, simply vanish without a trace? These questions have answers. For more than a decade, David's family members, friends, and loved ones, as well as regional experts, reporters, and embassy personnel have searched for those answers in vain. For their part, local authorities point to the Jinsha River for answers. They contend that the lack of physical evidence surrounding David's disappearance could indicate that he fell and was swept away by the river, despite the fact that his body was never found. Well, it is certainly possible for that to happen to an unsuspecting tourist hiking on unfamiliar terrain, but David was not a novice outdoorsman by any stretch of the word. He was an Eagle Scout and an avid hiker who had years of experience trekking over rugged landscapes across the American West. In recent years investigational reporters and regional experts have suggested an alternative explanation of David's disappearance. For instance, on April 25, 2013, Melanie Kirkpatrick, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a well-regarded expert on North Korea, wrote an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. On behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. On behalf of the senior Senator from Alabama, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Alabama, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my amendment No. 3023. The purpose of this amendment is simple--to put in the hands of the people the right to decide whether a monument close to them will be designated. My amendment would leave intact the President's authority to designate a monument such that we could protect land from imminent destruction, but it puts a fuse on that. It puts a finite limit on that authority so that within 3 years that monument designation would expire unless both the host State has acted to embrace it and Congress has affirmatively enacted the monument designation into law. The American people demand and deserve nothing less than to have decisions such as these put in the hands of their elected representatives rather than simply handed over to one single official who doesn't stand accountable to the American people. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.