S5962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

the credit and debit card systems in 

this country more transparent, more 

competitive, and more fair. 

I have worked hard over the years to 

make sure that merchants and consumers do not get nickled and dimed to 

death with hidden and unreasonable 

fees from Visa and MasterCard, and we 

have made great strides. 

That is why I am speaking out about 

my concerns with this proposed settlement. I know that Visa, MasterCard, 

and the banks are thrilled with this 

settlement, but this is not a settlement 

I would agree to. 

I hope that the remaining merchant 

plaintiffs will review the proposed settlement carefully and think hard about 

whether it will be good for the future 

of our credit and debit card systems. 

They should not be anxious to sign 

away that future and settle for a bad 

deal. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO JOE MATAL 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to 

take a moment to recognize the service 

of one of my longtime legal counsels on 

the Judiciary Committee, Joe Matal. 

Joe will be leaving the Senate in a few 

weeks after 12 years of Senate service, 

and I wanted to say a few words of 

thanks. 

Joe is well-known on Capitol Hill as 

a sharp, tenacious, and principled lawyer who fights hard for principle and 

the public good. It is frankly remarkable to reflect on the breadth of issues 

where Joe has played a major role in 

his years of service, but I will list a 

few. 

Joe was intimately involved in our 

efforts to grapple with post-9/11 realities, in particular through the Military 

Commissions Act and the Detainee 

Treatment Act and the reauthorizations of the USA Patriot Act. 

Joe has been instrumental in efforts 

to ensure appropriate DNA testing of 

criminals and to ensure that the rapekit backlogs are cleared. He worked on 

the Adam Walsh Act and the Internet 

SAFETY Act. He is a go-to lawyer on 

criminal sentencing issues. Very recently, he has been an essential adviser 

on negotiations relating to the cybersecurity legislation. 

I could go on and on. Joe has worked 

on the animal crush video law I sponsored, on False Claims Act amendments, on open government laws, and 

on legal reform bills such as asbestos 

litigation reform, the Class Action 

Fairness Act, and Bankruptcy Reform. 

He is also an expert on Indian Law and 

has been an indispensable counsel on 

my work that relates to Indian Country in Arizona, but also on Indian policy nationwide. 

Finally, and most obviously, in recent years Joe has justly earned the respect of the legal and policy community nationwide as a major force in the 

development of the patent reform bill 

that Congress passed a year ago. In 

fact, when Joe leaves my office, he will 

remain in government service and 

begin work as an assistant solicitor in 

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

Joe’s service there will be essential 

given that the agency is continuing to 

implement the patent reform bill that 

Joe did so much to create. 

I would be remiss if I did not also 

note that some of Joe’s important service has been in the bills he helped ensure did not become law. Our job as 

legislators is not to jump at every 

shadow, but to exercise caution when 

others seek to rush ill-considered legislation through the body. Joe’s counsel 

and his strategic guidance have been 

essential in protecting the Nation from 

many, many bills that would have been 

contrary to good public policy. 

So I want to thank Joe and wish him 

the best as he leaves for the PTO. I also 

want to thank his wife, Maren, and his 

three children, John, Liddy, and Margaret, for supporting him in these 

years of public service. I appreciate 

Joe’s hard work and patriotic service 

and wish him the best in his new position. 

f 

CULTURE DOES MATTER 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Governor 

Romney suggested on a recent trip to 

Israel that the culture of a society 

plays a role in its prosperity. Some 

took offense to these remarks, and others disagreed with his premise. During 

the last few days, a debate has ensued 

about how culture promotes prosperity. 

I believe Governor Romney made an 

important point. In a National Review 

piece entitled, ‘‘Culture Does Matter,’’ 

he asks, ‘‘What exactly accounts for 

prosperity if not culture?’’ 

After all, U.S. culture emphasizes 

freedom, equality, hard work, 

meritocratic excellence, upward mobility, the rule of law, and a devotion to 

family, education, and a purpose higher 

than oneself. These cultural values, 

and others, have made America the 

world’s leading superpower—a beacon 

of prosperity, freedom, and strength. 

Millions of people have left their 

homes over the centuries to come to 

America and be part of our way of life. 

As Governor Romney writes, Israel is 

also a telling example of the role of 

culture and prosperity. Like the United 

States, Israel’s culture is based on freedom and the rule of law. He writes that 

Israel’s embrace of political and economic freedom: 

. . . has created conditions that have enabled 

innovators and entrepreneurs to make the 

desert bloom. . . . In the face of improbable 

odds, Israel today is a world leader in fields 

ranging from medicine to information technology. 

Of course other factors, such as economic policies, contribute to a country’s prosperity. But the evidence 

shows that the role of culture 

shouldn’t be marginalized or dismissed. 

I ask unanimous consent that Governor Romney’s entire article, ‘‘Culture Does Matter,’’ be printed in the 

RECORD. I urge my colleagues to read 

it. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the National Review Online, July 31, 

2012] 

CULTURE DOES MATTER

(By Mitt Romney) 

During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes 

about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it. In some 

quarters, that comment became the subject 

of controversy. 

But what exactly accounts for prosperity if 

not culture? In the case of the United States, 

it is a particular kind of culture that has 

made us the greatest economic power in the 

history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to 

take risks, our commitment to honor and 

oath, our family orientation, our devotion to 

a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that 

propels the American economy stands out 

above all others: freedom. The American 

economy is fueled by freedom. Free people 

and their free enterprises are what drive our 

economic vitality. 

The Founding Fathers wrote that we are 

endowed by our Creator with the freedom to 

pursue happiness. In the America they designed, we would have economic freedom, 

just as we would have political and religious 

freedom. Here, we would not be limited by 

the circumstance of birth nor directed by the 

supposedly informed hand of government. We 

would be free to pursue happiness as we wish. 

Economic freedom is the only force that has 

consistently succeeded in lifting people out 

of poverty. It is the only principle that has 

ever created sustained prosperity. It is why 

our economy rose to rival those of the 

world’s leading powers—and has long since 

surpassed them all. 

The linkage between freedom and economic development has a universal applicability. One only has to look at the contrast 

between East and West Germany, and between North and South Korea for the 

starkest demonstrations of the meaning of 

freedom and the absence of freedom. 

Israel is also a telling example. Like the 

United States, the state of Israel has a culture that is based upon individual freedom 

and the rule of law. It is a democracy that 

has embraced liberty, both political and economic. This embrace has created conditions 

that have enabled innovators and entrepreneurs to make the desert bloom. In the 

face of improbable odds, Israel today is a 

world leader in fields ranging from medicine 

to information technology. 

As the case of Israel makes plain, building 

a free society is not a simple task. Rather, it 

is struggle demanding constant courage and 

sacrifice. Even here in the United States, 

which from our inception as a nation has 

been blessed with freedom, we faced monumental challenges in harmonizing our ideals 

with our institutions. We fought a bloody 

civil war against slavery and it took a nonviolent civil-rights movement to bring political and social equality to all Americans. In 

these epic struggles we changed our ‘‘culture’’ and vastly improved it. 

I have just returned from a trip abroad. I 

visited three lands—Israel, Poland, and 

Great Britain—which are defined by their respective struggles for freedom. I met with 

some of the greatest heroes of those struggles. I am always glad to return to American 

soil. On this occasion, I am only strengthened in my conviction that the pursuit of 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5963 

happiness is not an American right alone. 

Israelis, Palestinians, Poles, Russians, Iranians, Americans, all human beings deserve 

to enjoy the blessings of a culture of freedom 

and opportunity. 

f 

AUTOPILOT 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that Congress has agreed to 

put government funding decisions on 

autopilot for the first 6 months of fiscal year 2013 through another continuing resolution. This means, in effect, that a half year’s worth of hearings, briefings, and drafting of a dozen 

appropriations bills will have been for 

naught. 

I recognize there are many factors at 

play this year as the clock ticks toward the end of a fiscal year and toward November. But continuing resolutions are no way to run a government, 

and the consequences for the American 

people’s priorities, and for the agencies 

and the dedicated workers who implement our policies, will be dramatic. 

The world does not stand still, and 

time does not stand still. Circumstances that should be reflected in 

our budget decisions are changing all 

the time. Budgets are about choices. 

Budgets are about setting priorities. 

Doing this carefully and thoughtfully 

through hearings, through fact-finding 

and through negotiations among the 

people’s representatives in Congress is 

not an easy process, but it was not 

meant to be easy. Setting the process 

on autopilot is anathema to making 

the right decisions for our country. 

As the veteran reporter David Rogers 

put it today in Politico: 

Continuing resolutions do only one thing 

well: ‘continue.’ They don’t allow for new 

starts and typically set funding at the current rate enjoyed by an agency—with no 

room for new ideas. 

In fact, it is worse than that. As 

chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee I am particularly mindful of changes that have occurred around the world in the past 

year. The situation in the Middle East 

and North Africa is one of many examples. Our posture in Iraq and Afghanistan is changing significantly. Humanitarian crises in Syria and South Sudan 

are far greater than anyone envisioned 

1 year ago. At a time when the Chinese 

are ratcheting up their strategic investments across the globe to advance 

their national interests, the United 

States is stuck in neutral. 

I sympathize with the chairman and 

vice chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee and all the committee 

staff, who have worked hard to draft 

and report bipartisan bills. The State 

and Foreign Operations bill was reported on May 24 by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan vote. It has the strong 

support of Ranking Member GRAHAM, 

who worked closely with me in drafting 

it, as well as minority leader Senator 

MCCONNELL. With a day or so of floor 

time we could pass it and go to conference. That is the way it should be. 

Yet continuing resolutions are becoming increasingly common because they 

are a convenient and temptingly easy 

way to avoid hard decisions. Unfortunately, the American people lose, the 

country loses, and a great deal of time, 

effort and money are wasted. 

f 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN 

ECUADOR 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several 

weeks ago I spoke in this Chamber 

about the assault on freedom of expression in Ecuador, where President 

Correa has sought to silence his critics 

including the Special Rapporteur for 

Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. 

Last week, these attacks on legitimate expression reached a new height 

when, according to press reports, Ecuador’s Secretariat of Pueblos, Mireya 

Cardenas, said the government is investigating Fundamedios to determine if 

the support it receives from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development—USAID—is being used to interfere in ‘‘internal political affairs’’. She 

specifically criticized Fundamedios for 

lodging complaints at the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. She 

also attacked USAID for supporting 

sustainable forestry, civil society organizations, and the development of local 

productive enterprises, which are designed to protect the environment and 

improve the livelihoods of the Ecuadoran people. 

Mr. President, Fundamedios is a respected Ecuadoran nonpartisan organization that seeks to defend freedom of 

the press at a time when journalists 

and media organizations in that country are being vilified and threatened by 

officials of the very government that 

should be protecting them. It is similar 

to the conduct we have seen in Russia, 

Egypt, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, and 

other countries whose governments 

mistakenly equate legitimate advocacy 

by civil society organizations with unlawful political activity, as if Ecuador’s political affairs are the sole province of those who the government approves of. 

It is also important to reaffirm the 

indispensable role of the Inter-American human rights system, which has 

recently been targeted not only by 

President Correa, but also by the leaders of other Latin countries with weak 

and corrupt judicial systems who, in 

the name of ‘‘reform’’, seek to limit access to alternative fora for its citizens 

to obtain justice for abuses by government security forces. It is interesting 

that these same governments welcome 

the support of the OAS when it suits 

them, but campaign to weaken its 

mandate when it does not. 

To make a bad situation worse, 

President Correa again recently attacked one of Ecuador’s most respected 

newspapers. A few weeks ago, he said 

on TV that an editor with El Universo 

was ‘‘sinister.’’ And on July 28, he suggested that the editor of El Comercio 

was ‘‘mentally ill’’ and ‘‘unethical’’, 

for what appear to be nothing more 

than public comments made on the paper’s website by readers who questioned presidential decisions. 

On July 31, members of the police 

and the labor ministry, reportedly 

without a warrant, seized several items 

and information from the offices of the 

magazine Vanguardia for allegedly violating labor laws. The magazine’s director, Juan Carlos Caldero ́n, said the 

incident is an attempt to silence the 

independent press in Ecuador. 

For those of us who want closer relations between the United States and 

other countries in the hemisphere, including Ecuador, and who believe it is 

everyone’s responsibility to stand up 

for universal human rights of which 

freedom of expression is the most cherished, it is disappointing to see the 

path the Correa government is taking. 

This is not about competing political 

philosophies, party affiliation, or national sovereignty. It is about protecting the right of Ecuadoran journalists and Fundamedios to be free of government interference, and of defending 

the constitutional rights of all of Ecuador’s citizens. The country’s first constitution, written in 1830, stipulated 

that ‘‘every citizen can express their 

thoughts and publish them freely 

through the press.’’ Its current constitution, just 4 years old, protects 

each citizen’s right ‘‘to voice one’s 

opinion and express one’s thinking 

freely and in all of its forms and manifestations.’’ 

The people of Ecuador have a right to 

receive uncensored information. Sometimes that information is accurate, 

sometimes it is not. Everyone in public 

office knows that. Personal attacks 

and inflammatory charges by top officials weaken democratic discourse and 

have no place in a country with a long 

commitment to civil liberties. 

f 

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES 

CAPTAIN SCOTT PATRICK PACE

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I 

rise to pay tribute to CPT Scott Patrick Pace, United States Army. Captain Pace returned with honor to his 

heavenly home on June 6, 2012. By all 

accounts, he lived a life of service, hard 

work, and faith. 

While learning about Captain Pace’s 

life, I was struck by the description of 

those closest to him. They repeatedly 

described the Captain as someone who 

‘‘strived to do well.’’ As a youth, he 

faced obstacles which would keep many 

from pursuing athletics. However, as a 

testament to his character, Captain 

Pace pushed himself and overcame this 

hurdle by becoming an accomplished 

athlete in basketball and swimming. 

His coaches described him as someone 

who ‘‘took responsibility for himself 

and the team but never blamed his 

teammates. He’s the type of player 

every coach wants . . . in fact ever 

coach wants five of him . . . Scott was 

a coach’s dream and a leader. He’ll be 

missed dearly in this community.’’ 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE