Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Craig Thomas for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Craig is a native of Rock Springs, WY. He grew up in Fairfax, VA, where he graduated from Oakton High School. Craig currently attends the University of Alabama, where he is majoring in business management. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Craig for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Michael Trujillo for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Michael is a native of Laramie and a graduate of Laramie Senior High School. He currently attends the University of Wyoming, where he is majoring in political science and journalism. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Michael for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, recently the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, gave a speech in which she said she didn't realize how complicated it would be to implement the President's health care law. She didn't attribute this to all of the flaws that all of us know are in the law. The only problems she could see were because, she said, of Republican opposition.

Here is how one newspaper, Investor's Business Daily, described it: ``Blaming GOP for ObamaCare.''

The article goes through a list of problems with the law saying it is and it continues to be ``unpopular,'' ``expensive,'' ``ill-conceived'' and ``poorly written.''

Democrats in Congress and the administration do not seem to be interested in admitting that there are flaws in their law. They are only interested in trying to make sure someone else takes the blame for their huge mistake. The question is, Are Republicans opposed to this law? Of course we are because it is a terrible law. Democrats know how much of a mess this law is too. Some of them are even finally willing to admit it.

Last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on President Obama's budget for the next fiscal year. Secretary Sebelius testified at that hearing. I wish to read from an article in The Hill newspaper about what happened. The article is entitled: ``Baucus warns of `huge train wreck' in enacting ObamaCare provisions.'' A huge train wreck. The article identifies Senator Baucus as ``a key architect of the President's health care law'' and quotes him telling Secretary Sebelius: ``I just see a huge train wreck coming down.'' He added: ``You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet.''

It also quotes the Senator saying: ``Small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect.''

I agree with Senator Baucus. Businesses do have no idea what to expect, and this health care law is a train wreck.

So what does this mean in the real world? It is causing businesses to avoid hiring or to cut back hours. There are new headlines on this every day. Here is what one said last week: ``Nation's biggest movie theater chain cuts workweek, blaming ObamaCare.''

Regal entertainment has more than 500 movie theaters in 38 different States. Last month it began cutting shifts for employees to 30 hours a week. That is the cutoff under the health care law where an employer has to provide health insurance. The company sent out a memo to its employees explaining why it had to cut shifts. It said:

To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to

increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed

eligible based on the law's definition of a full time

employee.

One theater manager said they have had a wave of resignations from managers who have seen their hours cut by 25 percent.

He said:

In the last couple of weeks, managers have been quitting on

a daily basis from various locations to try and find full-

time work. Mandating businesses to offer health care under

threat of debilitating fines doesn't fix the problem, it

creates one.

We already had 22 million people in this country who either can't find a job or can't find the full-time work they want. Now we have even more hard-working Americans whose hours are being cut because of the unreasonable burdens of the President's health care law. That is what this law does to jobs in America. That is what the coming health care train wreck looks like.

Here is another headline, this one from the New York Times over the weekend. It is on page 1. At the top of the page is the news about the capture of the second bomber. At the bottom of page 1: ``Part-Time Work Becomes Full-Time Waits for Better Job.'' Part-time work is a full-time wait for a better job. The article talks about exactly this problem of people who want full-time work but can only find part-time work.

The article specifically cites the health care law as a reason why so many people are having trouble. It quotes one economist saying:

There is another reason to believe that part-time

employment will stay higher for longer, namely, the

incentives to employ part-time workers created by Obama's

health care reforms.

The article goes on to add: ``Confusion about the law and its requirements abounds.''

That is the same point Senator Baucus made. Businesses don't know what to expect, people don't know what is going to happen and it is hurting families and it is holding down our economy. Again, that is what the health care train wreck looks like.

The train wreck also means the health care law is going to be very hard on family finances. It is going to increase how much people have to spend for insurance and care. A study by the Society of Actuaries says costs for health claims will go up an average of 32 percent--a 32- percent average increase across the country. Those higher costs are going to be passed along to consumers. That means more money out of the pockets of hard-working people, and that is going to be money they can't afford to lose right now.

We got another sign of the coming health care train wreck when President Obama finally released his budget for the next fiscal year. Of course, it came in over 2 months late. That is later than any other President who was already in office at the beginning of the year.

Why did it take so long? President Obama certainly didn't use the extra time to come up with any sort of a plan to stabilize the Nation's finances. Instead, he continues to add to the debt burden of America's children and makes it harder for Americans of all ages to achieve their dreams. Deficits continue far into the future. The President also offered no real entitlement reform and no plan to grow America's stagnant economy. President Obama is truly budgeting from behind.

What is interesting about his budget, though, is not just how late it is; it isn't just what that says about the lack of leadership from the White House. What is also very interesting is what this budget says about the coming train wreck of the President's own health care law.

The train wreck is coming not just because the President's health care law is unaffordable for families; it is also unaffordable for the taxpayers of this country. The President's budget fails to slow down Washington spending, but it is also dishonest about how much of a budget buster his health care law will be.

In fact, the administration has used a lot of smoke and mirrors to try to hide the true costs of the health care law. Here is how the Associated Press put it. They ran an article entitled ``Tracking Obama's health law in budget isn't easy.'' The article points out that the President's budget includes no chapter, no table, not even a mention of what all the health care spending adds up to.

This Associated Press article quotes Bill Hoagland, who is a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He says: ``I'm sure somebody has a spreadsheet somewhere, but clearly they are not publishing it in this budget.''

The Obama administration knows that if they spelled out exactly how much this law is costing, the American people would be outraged.

So what do we know about the cost of the health care law? We know the President wants almost $975 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services next year. It is a budget increase of over $100 billion since just last year--an 11.5-percent increase. The health care law was supposed to help slow down the growth in spending. Instead, it is using taxpayer dollars to fuel the fire, and it is powering us toward the coming train wreck faster than ever.

Part of the money would go to pay for 3,000 more Washington bureaucrats at Health and Human Services. That kind of increase in Washington spending is not something the American people need, and it is not anywhere close to what we as a nation can afford.

In another part of the budget, it says Washington needs $32 billion to pay for what the administration calls premium assistance credits. Those are the subsidies to help people pay for the new insurance they are going to have to get under the President's health care law. That is taking $32 billion from taxpayers to help hide how unaffordable this health care law is for families. The President says that 10 years from now this $32 billion will grow to $118 billion a year. That is a train wreck.

What else does the President want? He wants $772 million for administrative costs at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That is going to pay for more than 4,600 bureaucrats.

When I talk to people about their health care concerns, nobody has ever told me--and I am a doctor; I have practiced for over two decades in Wyoming and I was home this weekend at a health care fair--nobody has ever told me the problem is we don't have enough Washington bureaucrats. I have never heard that, not even once.

Still, that is exactly what we are going to get under the President's budget and under this health care law: costs going up instead of down; debt going up, not down; the Washington bureaucracy getting bigger and bigger. That is a train wreck.

The President's budget also asks for $440 million for the IRS to administer the health care law. That is $440 million the IRS would not need if Democrats had not forced this law on the American people. The Internal Revenue Service is going to need 1,954 more employees just to implement the health care law, not more doctors, not more nurses--1,954 more IRS employees. That is just the beginning of what the agency is going to be asking for in the next few years. We are going to see an army of new IRS agents and auditors to investigate the health insurance choices of Americans and their families.

The Obama administration isn't worried about all that power in the hands of those IRS agents. It is not worried about how unaffordable the health care law is for taxpayers. The only thing this administration seems to worry about is who is going to take the blame for the train wreck we all know is coming right around the corner.

The President's health care law is bad for our economy, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for patients, and it is bad for the health care providers of our Nation.

Now the President's budget makes clear his health care law is also very bad for hard-working American taxpayers. The people wanted real health care reform, but Washington Democrats instead gave them a train wreck.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment protects the privacy and safety of law-abiding gun owners. When government officials release gun ownership information, it puts many lives at risk. This includes the lives of lawful gun owners, the lives of law enforcement, and the lives of victims of domestic violence.

State or local governments which release private gun owner information will be penalized 5 percent of their Federal program funding. This includes the release of private information on individuals who have licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. The funding which is withheld will then be redistributed to the States which are in compliance. This amendment will ensure gun owners across the Nation do not have their private gun owner information publicly released.

I urge all Senators to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 730

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 717.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about this amendment which to me is very simple and very straightforward. This amendment is designed to protect the privacy and the safety of law- abiding gun owners.

If a State or local government releases private information on gun owners--which we know has happened--then that State or local government will lose part of its funding that comes from the Federal Government. This includes private information on individuals who have licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms.

Again and again we have seen the irresponsible release of gun ownership information. Most recently, a newspaper published an interactive map of data received by government officials of gun owners in various parts of New York. One may wonder how the publication got such a list. They obtained this sensitive list from county officials. The map included the names and addresses of individuals who have firearm permits in the counties involved.

These individuals--law-abiding gun owners, retired law enforcement officers, victims of domestic violence--all had this information about their private lives released. The release of this information by county government did nothing to increase public safety and, in fact, I believe the government compromised public safety. By releasing the names and addresses, I believe the government put these permitholders and their families at risk. It also put a mark on the backs of their neighbors who may not have any firearms. Eventually, this newspaper took the map down, but the damage was already done.

In January of this year, a criminal attempted to burglarize a home in White Plains, NY. The homeowner was in his seventies and his gun information was released on the Internet. Thankfully, the robber did not successfully steal the firearms. Less than a week later--also earlier this year, in January--another home in New City, NY, that was disclosed on the Internet was robbed. This time, the robber successfully stole two handguns and two firearm permits--legally obtained firearm permits now stolen.

The timing of the disclosure and the robberies clearly appears to be more than just a coincidence. These criminals had the names, addresses, and a map. That is all they needed. And where did they get it? Because of the release of the information by the government.

This, to me, was an irresponsible disclosure.

It goes beyond that. They have also released information that put a victim of domestic violence at risk. According to a New York State Senator, the county officials also disclosed the name and the location of a victim of domestic violence who had a legal gun permit.

Throughout my medical career I have treated victims of domestic violence. I have seen firsthand the importance of not disclosing the location of victims of domestic violence. Often they move among a network of safe houses. They start a new life in a new city. This individual was so threatened that she contacted her State Senator, for one. While I don't know the specifics of her case, I do know there was someone in her life who posed a threat that warranted a gun permit. Victims of domestic violence should never have their location disclosed by State or county officials--not under any circumstances I can think of. This, to me, is a perfect example of the unintended consequences of a government releasing sensitive information.

As we can see from these examples, there are many unintended consequences that put the public at risk. The county officials were responsible, in my opinion, and they certainly did not increase public safety. I believe they harmed it.

So now we have two handguns that were stolen in the hands of criminals because of the fact that the list was released and then made public in a broader way. We now have a victim of domestic violence whose identity and location have been disclosed. This release of private gun ownership information not only puts the lives of gun owners and law enforcement and victims of domestic violence at risk but also their unarmed neighbors.

I bring this amendment to the floor. While this information clearly involves gun owners, it is about privacy and our rights as individual citizens. It is about protecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens who are exercising their Second Amendment rights. So today I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 719

I also wish to say a word about another amendment proposed earlier that we will be voting on later today which has to do with the concealed carry issue. I have a Washington Post front-page story from this past Saturday, April 13, and the article quotes a Member of this body. It is a front-page article that carries over. It says: ``Somebody could come from Wyoming''--well, I am a Senator from Wyoming. ``Somebody could come from Wyoming to the big cities of New York or New Haven or Bridgeport and carry a concealed weapon.''

As a surgeon, I did some of my surgical training in New Haven and Bridgeport. So I am a Senator from Wyoming, and it mentions places where I did my surgical training, and I do have a concealed carry permit issued by the State of Wyoming.

I bring this to the attention of this body to say that I would, with this concealed carry permit, under the amendment I support, be able to carry concealed in Wyoming as well as if I returned to the place where I got some of my surgical training. What we need to have is this sort of reciprocity.

In Wyoming, we don't just hand out permits such as this. There is an entire regimen an individual must go through to obtain a concealed carry permit. First, a person has to prove they are proficient in handling a firearm by taking a course and getting signed off by a certified inspector, complete an application, pay a fee, and then of course submit fingerprints to the FBI for an evaluation. So a person has to go through all of those things. I will tell my colleagues, criminals do not apply for concealed carry permits. Criminals issue their own.

If an individual is currently prohibited by Federal law from carrying a firearm, they are going to continue to be prohibited under this amendment. This amendment allows law-abiding individuals to lawfully carry concealed firearms across State lines while following the laws of the host State. Just like a driver's license, this amendment is a license for self-defense across State lines in accordance with State laws.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment as well as the one we just heard about from Senator Cornyn about concealed carry.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about a remarkable lady, Joye Kading. Joye is being honored this week with the dedication of the Joye Kading Gallery at the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum.

Joye Kading is the founder of the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum. Located at the former Casper Army Air Base, a training facility for bomber pilots from 1942-1945, the museum is housed in the original tar paper building that served as the enlisted men's club.

Joye saw the Casper Army Air Base through its entire lifetime. She was there when the area was nothing but open Wyoming prairie, and watched it develop into an operational air base. She saw it through its heyday, and she was there when the base shut down at the end of World War II. In March 1942, when Lt. Col. Carl T. Nordstrom came to visit Casper to see if it was a viable spot for an air base, he hired Joye to serve as his secretary. Her tenacity, ingenuity, and initiative was so highly regarded that she continued to serve as a secretary for many of the Casper Army Air Base's top officials. Around the air base and in the community, she was a confidant, a big sister, and always willing to give a word of advice or just take the time to listen.

During her work with the officers and personnel at the base, Joye collected photographs, letters, programs and other memorabilia. Her collection became a central part of the historical records she preserved through the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum. Many of the men in Joye's photographs did not return from war. Joye's passion for preserving this unique part of Wyoming's history has ensured that stories of the servicemembers stationed in Casper will not fade away with time.

In 2006, Kading was awarded the Daughters of the American Revolution National History Award for her dedication and commitment to honoring veterans and preserving their history. Throughout her life, Joye Kading has embodied the spirit of service to country and responsibility of community. The newly dedicated gallery will serve as a permanent memorial for Joye's important contribution to preserving Wyoming's rich military history. She is a true American patriot and a cornerstone of Wyoming's unique heritage. I am honored to call Joye Kading my neighbor, a former patient, and my friend.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by Ken Hamilton, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau that was Published in the April 2013 edition of Wyoming Agriculture. The article's title is ``Equal Access to Justice for a few.''

Mr. President, while we continue to fight for increased transparency with regards to the Equal Access to Justice Act, one thing is already clear--the Federal Government is picking winners and losers. Mr. Hamilton calls this a ``cozy appearance between the groups who sue the Federal Government and the desire by the government to help pay their way.'' He points out in one recent case of several environmental groups suing the Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf delisting efforts where the Federal Government quickly approved their November 2012 claim for $380,000 in attorney fees. That is $380,000 dollars of hard-earned American taxpayer dollars this administration's Justice Department was more than happy to hand over to their political allies.

Ken continues to illustrate the apparent political fingerprints and favoritism in the Justice Department by stating, ``Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Wyoming Wolf Coalition through its attorney Harriet Hageman, has asked the Federal Government for their fees under EAJA. These fees, one-tenth of the environmental claim, have been argued over by the same Federal Government since April of 2011.'' Let me repeat that. Since 2011, the Justice Department has been actively arguing over an EAJA claim of approximately $36,000 to a group that supported wolf delisting when the same Justice Department agreed to send $380,000 to environmental groups opposed to the delisting of wolves.

Based on these facts I would have to agree with Ken's conclusion that, ``the Equal Access to Justice Act is being applied less than equally by the Federal Government. It appears that if they agree with you they will send you a check, but if they do not they will send you an attorney's response denying you your money.''

This administration should not be in the business of playing favorites by rewarding their political friends with taxpayer dollars. I commend Ken for highlighting the apparent inequality and abuse of the so-called Equal Access to Justice Act. This is one of the reasons I plan to continue fighting for real transparency regarding which groups are receiving EAJA payments, why they are receiving it, and how much money--taxpayer money--is being given away. It is time the Equal Access to Justice Act truly live up to its name.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as someone who has just traveled around my home State of Wyoming for the last couple weeks, talking to people, listening to what they have to say. I do it as a doctor as well as a Senator, but people there know me as a doctor because I practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, taking care of families from all around the State. So it is not surprising that in every town I visit, people ask me what is happening with regard to the President's health care law.

People around Wyoming continue to be very worried--worried that there is going to be a new layer of Washington between them and their doctor. People don't want anyone between them and their doctor, not an insurance company bureaucrat, not a Washington bureaucrat. So families are worried they are not going to be able to keep the insurance they have now and maybe insurance that works pretty well for them--insurance they like, they want, and they can afford. But they are concerned they are not going to be able to keep what they have.

Employers are also worried. They are worried they are not going to be able to afford the health care mandates under the President's health care law.

That is what I heard as I traveled around the State. I will be back in Wyoming again this weekend, traveling to a number of communities, and I expect I will hear the same thing this weekend. I am sure Members of the Senate have heard concerns similar to this from people all around their home State, as they visited around and listened to the voters over the last couple weeks.

While we were out hearing from folks and families back home, there has actually been a lot in the national news the last couple weeks making the very same points I was hearing in Wyoming, and that is what I wish to talk about today.

We have had one headline after another about the dangerous side effects of the health care law. For one thing, employers in Wyoming aren't the only ones who are worried about how much the law is going to cost, how it is going to have an impact on them and their businesses and their ability to hire more people.

According to a news survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the health care law's expensive new mandates are now the No. 1 concern of small businesses across the country. Seventy-one percent of small businesses say the law makes it harder for them to hire new workers. One-third say they plan to actually reduce hiring or cut back hours because of the employer insurance mandate. Twenty-two million Americans are out of work or are working less than they would like, and that is what we saw in the dismal jobs report just this last Friday.

You say, why is that? The Federal Reserve's Beige Book came out last month, and companies all around the country are saying: We are not going to hire because of the uncertainties and mandates in the President's health care law.

The recession ended 4 years ago, but the only way our economy is going to get back on track is if we free the private sector to start hiring in far greater numbers than they are willing to do right now. But the President's No. 1 signature accomplishment, his law, makes it actually harder for businesses to hire more people. One would expect the President would want to make laws that would make it easier for employers to hire more people.

There was another headline on how the President's health care law is hurting small businesses. Here is what the New York Times says: ``Small Firms' Offer of Plan Choices Under Health Law Delayed.''

What they are talking about is the promise the President made that his health care law would help small businesses find affordable health care plans. Of course, that is a desirable goal. The problem is the law doesn't bring out what the goals may have been. The law was supposed to create a new insurance market for small employers. That is what they are promised. Their workers would then have a variety of choices so they could pick the plan that worked best for them.

The New York Times article says:

The promise of affordable health insurance for small

businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new

health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and

Democratic leaders in Congress. . . .

That is what the New York Times says that the President of the United States was telling the American people:

The promise of affordable health insurance for small

businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new

health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and

Democratic leaders in Congress. . . .

So what is going on? The administration admits things haven't worked out the way they had promised.

They can't meet the law's deadline, so it is going to delay the entire program for a full year to 2015. Of course, the Obama administration says it will not delay the mandate until 2015. So you have to provide the health insurance now, in 2014, but: Sorry. We made some promises, but they are not going to happen until 2015. You still have to pay right now and do this.

So small businesses are going to get hit with the higher costs of providing the insurance, but they don't get the program that was supposed to help them in the first place--the program promised by the Democrats in this body who voted for it and promised by the President of the United States who in many ways went on to deliberately deceive and mislead the American people as a result of what we are now finding is in the health care law. I am happy to see the national press reporting it because we are sure hearing it from people around the country.

What we see now is that if a business wants to offer its workers insurance through an exchange, it has to pick one plan for all the people. The workers are going to get none of the choices they were promised. According to Washington and this administration and this President, now one size has to fit all.

Even in a business where the employees now currently have several choices, they are going to lose their options. They are not going to be able to pick the insurance plan that is right for them and for their families. That is what is happening to Zachary Davis.

Zachary Davis owns a couple ice cream shops and a restaurant in Santa Cruz, CA. He has 20 full-time workers and today he offers them health insurance.

Isn't that the goal? Workers--offer them health insurance. These workers range in age from college students to seniors, so they have different needs at different ages, different fears, different concerns, different needs. What the younger ones prefer are lower premiums and then higher out-of-pocket costs if they happen to get sick. That is because they are healthy and they do not really go to see a doctor very often. The older workers who work in the same company visit doctors more frequently, as would be expected, so they are more interested in a position where their policies maybe have higher premiums but lower deductibles. People want to make choices.

Right now the employees who work for Zachary have actually three different plans that fit their needs. They get to choose. But what Zachary Davis has told CNN is that limiting his workers to a single plan would be a deal breaker and it would keep him out of the exchanges. He said:

That would not be a good fit for us. For a business like

ours--and a lot of businesses I deal with on a regular

basis--I can't see that making sense.

He is right. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But that is what President Obama's health care law has given the American people-- something that doesn't make sense and another broken promise, another hurdle to get in the way of job creators, another failure of the Washington bureaucracy, and another burden on workers who like the insurance they had before and now are not going to be able to keep it.

During the 2 weeks we have been traveling our States and traveling the country, there has been headline after headline. Here is one more headline from an Associated Press story. This headline says: ``Health Overhaul to Raise Claim Cost 32 percent.'' That is a 32-percent average increase in claim costs. This is a new report by the Society of Actuaries.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle in Cheyenne--this is Wednesday, 27, 2013: ``Health Overhaul Bumps Up Claim Cost 32 Percent. And If Insurance Companies Have To Pay More, You Can Bet We Will, Too.''

``And If Insurance Companies Have To Pay More, You Can Bet We Will, Too.''

On average, insurance companies will have to pay out 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies because of the health care law, so that is going to drive up premiums for all of us. It drives up how much hard-working Americans have to pay to get medical care and to buy insurance. Why? The President's health care law.

Here is how the Associated Press summarized it. It said:

Obama has promised that the new law will bring down costs.

That seems a stretch now.

This is not me, this is the Associated Press: ``That seems a stretch now.'' I would say it is actually an understatement. Costs will not go down because of the health care law because the law does nothing to help costs go down or make them go down. In fact, it does many things that actually cause costs to go up. All of the mandates, all of the new expenses, all of the new taxes--that is all going to add to the average increase of 32 percent. But that is just

the average. When we look at the increases in some States, we really start to see how much worse off a lot of people are going to be. In Ohio, we see an increase of 81 percent; in Wisconsin, up 80 percent; Indiana, up 68 percent; right next door to us in Maryland, up 67 percent; Idaho, up 62 percent. In my own State of Wyoming, people are facing a 32-percent increase. It is right at the national average.

This article in the newspaper, when you go to it, it says, ``Overhaul increases could top 50 percent for certain States.'' Here we see in many States that is the case. They have a list, State by State, of each of the State's claims--change in claims cost in health overhaul. That is what the American people are facing. These are terrible numbers, but they are absolutely predictable. In fact, some of us did predict that is what would actually happen. The American people cannot afford for health care costs to go up by 81 percent, as we are seeing in Ohio, or even by 32 percent, which is the national average. That is not what the President promised.

Finally, I want to point out just one more headline, one more broken promise the President made. We all remember when the President said that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. He said, ``No one will be able to take that away from you.'' The President of the United States said, ``No one will be able to take that away from you.''

Now we have another story from CNN. It says, ``Most Individual Health Insurance Isn't Good Enough For ObamaCare.'' This article talks about a University of Chicago study--talking about Chicago, the President's hometown. The study reported--from CNN--the University of Chicago reported that more than half of the individual insurance plans currently on the market will not be allowed to exist under the President's health care law--more than half. Fifteen million Americans buy individual plans, and half of those plans are going away. Even if these people like their coverage, the President says: Too bad. His health care law is taking it away from them.

Not only will the law eliminate more than half of the plans, most of the ones that remain are going to cost more next year. Why? It is because of what the administration calls the essential health benefits. These are specific individual mandates that require insurance plans to cover a wide range of services. For most consumers, it is going to mean a more extensive and a longer list of benefits. These higher benefits, of course, mean higher costs.

So people cannot just get the insurance that they and their family want, the insurance that is right for them as a family and the insurance that they can afford. No. They have to buy Obama administration-approved health insurance. That is insurance that is going to be much more expensive than what they might want, they might need, or they can afford. It may not even do them any good. So despite what the President has promised to the American people, they are not going to be able to keep the insurance they have. The options that are left to them are going to cost more.

These are just a few of the headlines--a few of the headlines we have seen just since we went out a couple of weeks ago and traveled the States. These are all fresh, new headlines from the last 2 weeks, but every day we get more and more information about the bad side effects of this terrible health care law. The President's health care law is unraveling before our eyes.

The American people knew what they wanted from health care reform. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is what the President promised the American people they would get from his health care law, but all the people of the country have seen are rising costs, less choice, and a larger Washington bureaucracy.

It is time for President Obama to finally admit that his health care law is dragging down the American economy. It is time for Congress to repeal this terrible law and replace it with the kind of reform that works.

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

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Nebraska in welcoming our new colleague to the Senate. She is going to be an incredibly welcome addition to this body. I have had the privilege of traveling with her on the trip to Afghanistan Senator Johanns just mentioned, and it was an opportunity for us to visit with servicemembers from our home State. She had the opportunity to meet servicemembers from Nebraska, many of whom voted for her but had not yet had the opportunity to meet her personally as they were serving overseas at the time of the election. They joined with other Nebraskans in knowing they made the right choice to represent them.

We heard a wonderful message today, the message of government and the message of freedom. I wish to join my colleagues in welcoming this rancher, community volunteer, and former State legislator to the Senate. She will make, through her grace and her grit, incredible contributions, not just for her State but also for our Nation and the betterment of all the people through this great opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor Udall amendment No. 239. Communities in Wyoming and other Western States continue to be threatened by wildfires stemming from excessive fuel loads in our national forests, continued drought, and excess beetle- killed timber. I speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. President, in 2010, President Obama set forth a goal of doubling our Nation's exports in 5 years. Three years later we are not on the pace to achieve that goal. One problem is the EPA is blocking exports. EPA is blocking exports on account of the greenhouse gas emissions those exports would produce outside of the United States; that is after they leave our shores.

This is a dangerous precedent. It will hurt exports of automobiles, aircraft, and heavy equipment such as tractors. This amendment prohibits Federal agencies from blocking exports on account of greenhouse gas emissions those exports would produce after they leave the United States.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

A voice vote will be acceptable.

Mr. President, within the last 20 minutes, I have heard on the floor comments about the sequester. A previous speaker on the Democratic side of the aisle said the sequester was hurting small business and said the sequester was causing economic uncertainty. Another Senator on the other side of the aisle made reference to the Washington Post.

Well, I would draw the attention of this body to the Washington Post of this morning, a front page story in the Washington Post of today, Thursday, March 21: ``Health-care uncertainty weighs down small firms''--not the sequester, uncertainty about the health care law. ``Requirements under 2010 law sow confusion, fear among businesses.'' That is the problem that is driving the fear and the anxiety and the lack of new business starts and the failure to expand business.

In this article, there is a small business owner of an air- conditioning firm in Richmond. He says:

In speaking to them, I am convinced--

He is talking about other customers, he is talking about other businesses--

I am convinced that the primary reason we aren't seeing a

robust economic recovery is the uncertainty and costs

associated with this health-care law.

``Looming health-care changes hold back small businesses.''

Another quote from the article:

It's already hard out there right now. . . . This may be--

``This'': the health care law--

the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Not the sequester, not made-up confusion by the Democrats, it is the health care law that is hurting our economy. Even the Federal Reserve, in their Beige Book, said so this past month.

So I rise today to speak on the fiscal year 2014 budget and the choice we face over whether we are going to grow the economy or just grow government bureaucracy.

When I travel home to Wyoming, as I did last weekend and will again this weekend, I hear from hard-working American taxpayers that they do not believe Washington is spending their tax dollars wisely. They think Washington has become far too inefficient, ineffective, and unaccountable. It is not just the people in Wyoming I am hearing it from. According to Gallup, Americans across the country estimate that the Federal Government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends. More than half of all taxpayer dollars are wasted is what the American people believe. So when people look at the Federal budget--and the debate that we are having today in the Senate--it is no wonder they are concerned. They want to know how this budget is going to affect them and their quality of life.

Looking at the Democratic budget, I think the American people have every reason to be skeptical and every reason to be concerned. This budget is just more of the same--more taxes, more spending, and more debt--and it never reaches balance, not this year, not 10 years from now, not ever.

This budget does far too little to heal our ailing economy and far too much to expand Washington bureaucracy. The budget the Democrats have put forward would increase taxes by $1 trillion. That is on top of the trillion dollars in tax increases in the President's health care law. It is also on top of the tax hikes the President demanded in the January deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. In contrast, the Republican plan from the House Budget Committee will not increase taxes at all.

The Democrats' budget will also rack up $7.3 trillion in new debt over the next decade. Since President Obama took office 4 years ago, he has added more than $6 trillion to our national debt. For 4 years, he has run budget deficits of over $1 trillion each and every one of those 4 years. Now Senate Democrats want to throw good money after bad and add another $7 trillion on top of that. The President has simply wasted too much of the American taxpayers' money. The American people have been stuck with an enormous bill as well as an anemic economy and economic growth that has been very slow.

The American people think more than half of all Washington spending is wasted, and the Democrats cannot find a single dollar that they think should be saved. Democrats actually want to increase Washington's spending by another $645 billion.

This budget would spend $46.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Apparently, President Obama thinks the only things which need to be cut from our budget are White House tours.

Well, Republicans and the American people know there is a lot more we could be cutting. Taxpayers are demanding Washington finally get serious about our budget and stop the political games and political gimmicks. It is time for Washington to do what families across the country have always needed to do, live within their means. Democrats still don't seem to get it. They continue to insist the rules don't apply to Washington, and they should not be held accountable for their spending choices.

Like their other failed policies of the past few years, the Democrats' plan is very much a statement of their priorities. It does nothing to stop the overregulation which is destroying jobs and strangling our economy. It protects failing government programs from reform. It does nothing to preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security for future generations. It spends more money so Washington Democrats don't need to make a single tough choice. They have made their priorities clear, but they are the wrong priorities for America.

Republicans have offered a plan which starts to rein in Washington's spending and getting it back in line with revenue. This is what we should be doing. With a debt of more than $16 trillion, it is why, and it is way beyond the time to balance the budget.

We need to finally start to ease the burden of that debt on future generations. We need to reduce our obligations to countries such as China. We need budget reforms which help to grow our economy and create jobs, or we can go in the opposite direction the Democratic way. The Democratic budget never balances. It never even comes close to balanced.

The smallest deficit it ever achieves would be more than $400 billion in 2016, and then the deficit begins to climb again. It continues Washington's unrestrained borrowing and spending and continues the damage 4 years of failed Democratic priorities have done to our economy. According to one independent analysis, the Democrats' budget would cost America 853,000 jobs. Total economic output would be $1.4 trillion less because of this budget. Private investment would be $82 billion less per year.

As bad as this budget is, at least we finally have a Democratic budget to debate. This is the first time in 4 years the Democrats have even bothered to offer a budget in the Senate.

President Obama has not even submitted a budget. Where is the President's budget? It was due on February 4. Now the White House says they will

finally produce a budget maybe sometime in April. This is more than 2 months late.

What we have to work with is an unserious budget plan written by Senate Democrats. It is inadequate to the challenges we face as a country. It is out of touch with what the American people want, and it is a slap in the face to the hard-working taxpayers who will need to pay for it.

If President Obama truly believes we can take a balanced approach to our budget, he should publicly oppose this wildly unbalanced budget which harms America. We need a serious budget, one which grows the economy, not government bureaucracy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the Cruz amendment and I do that as a doctor, as someone who has practiced medicine for 25 years taking care of families all around the State of Wyoming.

When we entered into the discussion about health care, and then ultimately the discussion of what became the Obama health care law, I would come to the floor and say, yes, we need to do

health care reform. Patients know what they want. They want the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. Because cost was the driver of all of this.

Then we got into the debate and into the discussions and what we ended up with was a health care law over 2,000 pages long. I said then: Does that make a lot of sense? Let's go back to what one of our Founding Fathers said. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said: Congress shall pass no laws so voluminous they cannot be read nor so incoherent they cannot be understood. Regrettably, that is exactly what we got with this health care law--a law so voluminous it cannot be read and so incoherent it cannot be understood.

And when you say: Well, how do we know it is so long that it could not be read, how voluminous, well, Nancy Pelosi said it herself. She said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Well, the American people now know what is in the health care law. They know it, and they don't like it.

I have had townhall meetings all around the State of Wyoming. When you go to a community and talk about the health care law and ask the simple question, Do you believe that under the President's health care law you will be paying more for your health care, all the hands go up. And then you ask the question, Do you believe that under the President's health care law the quality of your care and the availability of your care will actually go down, and again all the hands go up. That is why as of today this health care law continues to be very unpopular. Nationwide, more people think the health care law is doing harm than believe it is doing well.

Let's take a look at what the President promised during the discussion and why some people supported it.

First of all, the President said that under the health care law, if you like the plan you have, if you like the care you have, you can keep it.

We now know from many studies and reports that is not the case. It seemed in having just read the law as it was being discussed that you weren't going to be able to keep it, but it wasn't until now that people realize more and more that they are not able to keep what they had if they liked it.

The other thing the President promised is that under his health care law, insurance premiums for a family would drop by $2,500, he said, by the end of his first term in office. The first term has come and gone, and what families around the country are seeing is that health care premiums didn't go down, they actually went up--up quite a bit, up by over $3,000 per family.

Why is it that the law is so unpopular? There are many reasons, but part of it is this so-called individual mandate--the mandate that the government can come into your home and tell you that you have to buy a government-approved product. Many people around the country believe it is unconstitutional. It actually went to the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled. The Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional. But it is still unworkable, it is still very unpopular, and it is absolutely unaffordable for us as a nation.

I talk to physicians and I talk to the nurses who take care of patients. This health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for the American taxpayers.

The most interesting thing to me in the last week has been the report called the ``Beige Book,'' which the Federal Reserve comes out with every month. They travel around the country and ask their Federal Reserve people what is happening in this community, that community, in this part of the country, in that region of the country. And what is happening to the economy? In this past month's report, it said that specifically as a result of the health care law, businesses aren't hiring. The Federal Reserve has called this a drag on the economy--the health care law.

How can that be? Well, there are a couple of things. One is the huge uncertainty--businesses not knowing what the impacts of the health care law specifically in terms of dollars and cents are going to be. But there are a couple of components of the health care law that are really hurting in terms of businesses hiring people. One is that things kick in for businesses once a business has 50 employees. So if a business has 49 full-time employees and they are trying to expand and they have more business and they want to hire more people, they have to decide, what is the cost of that additional 50th employee?

Well, the costs are dramatic because it then kicks that business into the huge expenses of supplying government-approved health care--not necessarily health care or insurance at a level that those employees might need or want or that business can afford, no; a government level of approved health care that may be much more than that individual needs or wants or can afford because the government is saying: We know what is best, the government knows what is best for you, the family in this community or that community and people working for that business. So that is part of it. So those folks aren't hiring.

Remember, I said full-time employees. They define full time as 30 hours or more a week. So we have the businesses known as the 29ers, where they are, for purposes of not having additional full-time employees, hiring people for 29 hours a week. There have been reports in the press of different businesses where people are working two different jobs at two different businesses because they can only get part-time work, and the reason they can only get part-time work is because when they are part-time workers, the businesses aren't mandated to pay for very expensive health care which makes it much more difficult to be successful as a business and to keep hiring more people.

There was a report of a Five Guys hamburger chain in one community. They said: We are not going to expand, we are not going to build another, we are not hiring any more full-time people, and we are going to cut the hours of the people we have. We are putting in more part- time people.

This is one of the unintended consequences of the health care law-- hurting the economy directly through impacting jobs.

The President says he wants to improve the economy, get people back to work, get America on the road to recovery. Yet the health care law is--according to the Federal Reserve in this month's ``Beige Book''-- hurting the economy, dragging down the economy.

So I come to the floor today to support the amendment by Senator Cruz because the American people know what they were looking for in health care reform, which was, of course, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost, and that was not at all provided under the President's health care law.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on Sunday, March 10, 2013, Wyoming lost a beloved veteran and citizen, Leo Sanchez. I would like to tell my colleagues about this patriot.

There is a Marine Corps saying, ``Marines never die; they regroup at the pearly gates and wait for Saint Peter to issue them orders.'' Those who knew Leo are certain he is running through a list with Saint Peter regarding his ideas to improve heaven.

Leo served our great Nation first in the Army National Guard and then in the Marine Corps. He fought in Korea. Following his service, he came home to Wyoming and had a successful career as an educator. His desire to serve his community did not end in the classroom; Leo became an involved member of every veteran organization. His priority was helping fellow veterans from every branch and period, at every opportunity.

It is impossible to measure the loss of a man like Leo Sanchez. His absence will be felt by Wyoming for generations. Leo was one of my State's great treasures. He always gave more than he himself required. I could always count on seeing Leo in uniform beaming with pride and celebrating fellow veterans and our Nation's patriotic events.

Leo was not only a veteran but a beloved teacher. Leo's legacy is in the children of Wyoming, those whom he taught and inspired. Leo recognized a secret that very few embrace: regardless of the conditions of the day, America will always remain great as long as her children understand patriotism and choose to live their lives to those patriotic standards. Leo wholeheartedly believed that there is always hope as long as the next generation values the cost and necessary sacrifice that accompany freedom.

Regardless of an individual's race, creed, or handicap, Leo found a way for every man, woman and child to participate in what it means to be an American. He appreciated that what makes the United States great isn't the flag on a flagpole but rather the hands that hold the flagpole. Leo instilled in everyone the importance of service, sacrifice, duty and love of country through his every action.

Semper Fidelis, Leo Sanchez, you will be missed.

Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate in great admiration for the Senator from Kentucky, for what he is doing to try to get information. All we are asked to do is to give advice and consent to the President on this very important nominee to be the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the key to central intelligence in this Nation. I come to the floor this evening to thank my colleague from Kentucky for the leadership he has continued to show by asking questions which are not just questions of his, they are questions of the American people.

I was traveling around the State of Wyoming last week, talking to folks. I went to 13 different counties in our State of 23 counties. There were many questions being asked about drones, not just their accuracy but their intent and what this administration's policy is related to drones and how they can be used. People in my home State of Wyoming are concerned about drones being used in the United States, not just specifically for attacks against American citizens but also the concept in observation, in surveillance. What about our rights as citizens to privacy? Those are the questions that come up as I travel around the State.

I had a telephone townhall meeting the other evening with many people from all around Wyoming on the line. They admire the questioning from the Senator from Kentucky. They have concerns: Is Big Brother watching? What is happening and what role has government in observing and surveillance and looking into the lives of the American people?

It was not until Senator Paul asked the question would there be strikes on American citizens in America that I think things became very focused at home and all around the country. Then we got more e-mails, more concerns, because the specific question that Senator Paul is asking is a question that is on the minds of all Americans. I believe Senator Paul deserves an answer. The American people deserve an answer. So it is not just Senator Paul who deserves an answer, it is an answer to all of the people of this country. But I appreciate Senator Paul's leadership in asking the specific question.

The Intelligence Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence met, they had hearings, they had debates, discussions, deliberations, and actually they voted. That is why we are here on the floor tonight, to ask finally from the White House and from the nominee what the specific position and policy of this administration happens to be on drones. I know we have a unanimous consent request from Senator Paul and in a second I am going to ask him to explain and maybe reiterate his unanimous consent request, explain the resolution he wishes to vote on. I think the Senator deserves a vote. We want to make sure the public understands what we are discussing here. That is why I appreciate the leadership of Senator Lee who has come here as a constitutional scholar to address some of these concerns.

I think before many Senators are able to make the final decision of how to vote, how to give advice and consent to the White House, we need more information. We need to hear from the White House. We need to hear from the administration because the people all around the country want those same questions answered.

We do have a situation where the Senator from Kentucky said he is willing to have a vote. He is willing to allow a vote on this nominee on the floor of the Senate as soon as his question is answered. He would be happy to proceed with that vote as early as tomorrow morning.

The American people deserve better than they are getting right now from this administration in so many ways. This is but one. That is why I think all of us try to go home every weekend to learn what is on the minds of folks in our home States, in our home communities. This is clearly what I have been hearing about, traveling around Wyoming, a State of vast open spaces, a State of great majesty and beauty, but a State where people are concerned with their own privacy, with overhead surveillance and of course not just their own personal privacy but their security.

What are the rights and responsibilities of a national government when new technology exists, as we have seen with drones? I had the privilege of visiting our soldiers overseas in Afghanistan with a number of Senators in January. We have seen up close, through detailed video, the capabilities of drones, capabilities that were not there that many years ago. Questions such as this would have never arisen a number of years ago because the technology was not there. But now the technology is there. With that given technology, that raises new questions. That is why I think so many Americans are appreciative of the work by Senator Paul to specifically ask questions that have never been asked before because the technology was not there before. Now we have the technology, we have the know-how, and the question continues to be asked.

I ask my friend and colleague from Kentucky if he could explain perhaps his unanimous consent request, what vote he is asking for, why it is so important, and what it means to all of us as free citizens in this great Nation.

Madam President, I come and ask my colleague if this is

something he may have heard about at home as well, because this is something clearly on the mind of the people of Wyoming. Of course, just like Kentucky--and I will tell you when I was overseas in Afghanistan I ran not just into soldiers from Wyoming--I met eight of them in four different locations that I went to throughout Afghanistan. I met soldiers from Kentucky in each of those locations. So we are both from States with a significant commitment to our military. People over the centuries have continued to fight and defend our freedoms. But today in Afghanistan we have soldiers from my home State and your home State doing what they do to keep us free, defending the Bill of Rights, defending the Constitution.

When we talk about the Bill of Rights, let's think about what Ronald Reagan said. The Bill of Rights was not established to protect the government from the people, it was established to protect the people from the government. Search and seizure, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, our second amendment rights to own and bear arms--those are the constitutional rights, individual rights that people are fighting for every day in Afghanistan. They want to know when they get home what sort of freedoms are there going to be in this country? Where is the role of liberty and freedom in our society?

That is why there is no better time, I would say, than this evening, before voting on the nominee to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency--the head of the CIA for the country--what better time to have this debate than during that nomination process about where is that line between freedom of individual citizens and the rights of a government which now has a technology which has not previously been there up until most recently.

So I ask my friend and colleague--No. 1, I congratulate him and thank him for remarkable leadership. I hear that all around my home State and I know he hears it at home as well. He hears it all around the country. But is this a concern on the minds of people? Is there a reason we are here to bring this out, not just because a couple of Senators are on the floor debating it? This is a crucial issue for this Nation.

Madam President, I have been able to put my hand on the letter Senator Paul has written to John Brennan on February 20. This is something that I believe brought in focus the key piece of what has been on the minds of the people in my home State with regard to their support for the question that Senator Paul is asking. Since I don't serve on that committee and was not part of the hearings, I wish to review this letter so I

can specifically ask Senator Paul about the response he has received to this. Perhaps then we can share that with the American people as to why so many folks who have been focused on this believe it is of key importance.

The letter from Senator Paul says:

Dear Mr. Brennan, In consideration of your nomination to be

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), I have

repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several

questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal

force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are

U.S. citizens.

It goes on to say:

Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of

the limitations to which you were subject, are of critical

importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA.

That is what we are doing. We are here in our role to advise-and- consent the President on a nomination he has made.

The letter goes on:

If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed

upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the

Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.

The people of Wyoming carry their Constitutions in their breast pockets. We have them with us just as Senator Bob Byrd used to do right here on the Senate floor, and many Members of the Senate do. We need to make sure the limits placed upon the executive branch by the Constitution are still upheld; otherwise, the Senate should not confirm Mr. Brennan to lead the CIA.

So the letter from Senator Paul goes on to say:

During your confirmation process in the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence, committee members have quite

appropriately made requests similar to questions I have

raised in my previous letter to you.

I agree. Members of the committee did make appropriate requests and wanted to have those same questions answered that Senator Paul has been offering, and they are that you expound on your views, Mr. Brennan, on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens. This is against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil.

That is among the fundamental questions I have been asked during telephone townhall meetings when I travel the State of Wyoming. It comes down to the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil.

The letter from Senator Paul goes on and says:

In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein,

specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the

record whether the Administration could carry out drone

strikes inside the United States.

We are now getting to the crux of the matter: drone strikes inside the United States.

Senator Paul goes on:

In your response, you emphasized that the Administration

``has not carried out'' such strikes and ``has no intention

of doing so.''

So has not done it, doesn't intend to do it, but it doesn't answer the question that Senator Paul, the people of his home State, the people of my home State, and the people all across this country are asking.

Senator Paul goes on in his letter to Mr. Brennan:

I do not find this response sufficient.

As people are following what the Senator from Kentucky is doing here, more and more people are asking and focusing on this specific question. The question I and many others have asked is not whether the administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether they believe they have the authority to do so. The question is about whether it has the authority to do so. The question is not whether they have carried them out, not whether they intend to, but do they have the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not and, I would add, cannot be ignored.

Well, the letter goes on:

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question

. . .

So the President has avoided the question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line, that ``There has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.''

Well, we believe that. We know that to be the case. We know that is the President's belief. We know that is the testimony of the nominee to be the CIA Director, but it evades the question. That is actually what Senator Paul says in his letter.

The evasive replies from the Administration to this valid

question have only confused the issue further without getting

us any closer to the actual answer.

So it is not whether they have intent or whether they have done it before, but do they have the authority to do so. This is the distinction which Senator Paul is trying to get at, as are many Americans all around the country who are tuning in to this important debate.

Senator Paul goes on to say in his letter to John Brennan:

For that reason, I once again request you answer the

following question: Do you believe that the President has the

power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike,

against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

Let me repeat:

For that reason, I once again request you answer the

following question: Do you believe that the President has the

power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike,

against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

Senator Paul goes on to say:

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

And that is what the American people believe as well.

Senator Paul concludes:

Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every

procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation

and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the

Administration's policies of the use of lethal force.

He says:

The American people are rightly concerned, and they deserve

a frank and open discussion of these policies.

So I come to the Senate floor tonight in support of my colleague and agree with what he is writing to John Brennan because the fundamental question is: Do you believe the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.

Senator Paul goes on:

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

So I would ask Senator Paul, through the Chair, if he could perhaps add a little light to this matter. This letter was sent to Mr. Brennan on February 20. It is now March 6. I know there has been some give-and- take and back-and-forth, but the fundamental question is one that has been on the minds of the people in my home State of Wyoming, as I traveled the State over the last few weeks.

What I just heard from the Senator from Kentucky is that these questions were asked in a bipartisan way. This was not partisan at all. I heard Senator Wyden from Oregon had similar questions. So this is a request for information.

Now, I have been able to find a copy for the first time of that January 25 letter that Senator Paul referenced to John Brennan, sent to him in his capacity as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and I just wanted to go through some of that and perhaps ask Senator Paul some specific questions related to it because it is my understanding that he has not gotten any kind of response to that.

The Senator mentioned three specific letters: First, the January 25 letter, then the letter of February 14, and then the letter of February 20 which, asks, really, the ultimate question: Do you believe the President has the power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial?

So now I have all three of those letters sent by Senator Paul to Mr. Brennan in his capacity currently as the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and now the nominee to be the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

So the letter goes:

As the Senate moves forward with its consideration of your

nomination to be the next director of the Central

Intelligence Agency, it will be necessary to examine not only

your qualifications and record, but also to determine whether

you will provide the necessary leadership as the head of an

agency that operates under unique rules for transparency and

that quietly holds significant influence over the advancement

of America's strategic priorities around the globe.

No other agency is like the CIA--unique rules for transparency. So Senator Paul goes on:

After reviewing your record as well as the record of

President Obama to whom you have provided a great deal of

advice and direction on issues of national security and

terrorism, I must ask several questions to help inform my

decision on your nomination.

That is what a responsible Senator does, a Senator who has taken quite seriously his role in providing advice and consent to the President on a nominee--a key nominee of a specific agency that operates under unique rules for transparency.

So I think it is absolutely appropriate that Senator Paul would write such a letter, and the questions raised are appropriate, many of which have been raised in a bipartisan way.

So question No. 1: Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the executive branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching that conclusion? Do you believe this is a good precedent for the government to set?

What better, clearer question to ask than that? He goes on:

Congress has been denied access to legal opinions and

interpretations authorizing placement of U.S. citizens

believed to be engaged in terrorism on targeting notices,

thus denying Congress the ability to perform important

oversight.

Oversight is a key role of this Congress. Oversight is a key, critical role of this branch of government, of Congress.

Senator Paul goes on:

Will you provide access to those opinions as well as future

opinions?

Very reasonable question.

The Senator said:

Would it not be appropriate to require a judge or a court

to review every case before the individual in question is

added to a targeting list?

Legitimate question.

Please describe the due process requirements in place for

those individuals being considered for an addition to a

targeting list.

Would you agree that it is paradoxical that the Federal

Government would need to go before a judge to authorize a

wiretap of a U.S. citizen overseas, but possibly not to order

a lethal drone strike against the same individual?

I want to go back to this question when I am visiting with Senator Paul, but this is the kind of thing I get asked in Wyoming, and I am sure the Senator from Kentucky is hearing the same thing: Would you agree that it is paradoxical that the Federal Government would need to go before a judge to authorize a wiretap on a U.S. citizen overseas, but possibly not to order a lethal drone strike against the same individual?

So what you have to do if you wanted to perform a wiretap would be more than you would have to do if you wanted to do a drone strike. I think it is a very legitimate question because if not, Senator Paul goes on to ask:

Please explain why you believe something similar to the

FISA standards should not be applied in regards to illegal

action against

U.S. citizens. Is it still your intent to codify and

normalize the so-called disposition matrix, a targeting list

that you helped to establish--

This would be Homeland Security Counterterrorism Assistant Brennan--

to direct counterterrorism operations in future

administrations as well as the targeted killing procedures

you have outlined in your playbook?

Then Senator Paul goes on and asks:

Aside from the President, how many people have access to

the full disposition matrix? Of those, how many participate

in the process to add individuals to the targeting list, and

how many have the authority to veto an individual's

inclusion?

This is a very thoughtful letter from Senator Paul to Mr. Brennan dated January 25, 2013. I want to continue to share with the American people the questions that have been asked by Senator Paul because I think they are so telling and so appropriate:

How many times have you specifically objected to an

individual's inclusion on a targeting list? How many times

have you recommended to the President against including an

individual on the targeting list?

These are questions people want to know the answers to:

How often are the criteria used for determining whether an

individual should be included on a targeting list amended?

Not simply reviewed; he is not asking about a review but an amendment.

How many government officials and which agencies

participate in establishing these criteria? Does the National

Counterterrorism Center have final say over all criteria?

Anybody who watches this issue closely has asked these questions and wants to know the answers.

Of those individuals who have been but are no longer

included in the disposition matrix or other target list, how

many have already been killed? How many have been removed

from the list by other means? How many individuals remain in

the disposition matrix or other targeting list today? And how

does the number compare to the number in prior years? Is the

number growing? Is the number shrinking? Is the number

static? What is happening to those numbers?

How many U.S. citizens have been added to this disposition

matrix or other targeting list? How many remain on the list?

How many U.S. citizens have been intentionally killed by U.S.

drone strikes since 2008? How many have been unintentionally

killed by U.S. drone strikes during that same period of time?

In how many countries has the United States executed a

drone strike against a presumed terrorist?

In each of the countries where the United States has

executed a drone strike in the past 4 years, please provide a

year-to-year estimate of those who self-identify or otherwise

associate with al-Qaida within that country.

I come to read this as somebody who has just come to see the capacity of the drones. I see the junior Senator from Texas has been on the Senate floor as well. He and I traveled together to Afghanistan. We have been able to see directly video from drone strikes. We know the capacity. We know their ability to target precisely. These are questions that in previous wars were not asked because the technology was not there, but now these are questions that are asked, that are being asked, which is why I am so grateful for the leadership of Senator Paul in asking these questions.

The letter goes on:

You have indicated that no credible evidence exists to

support recent claims that civilian casualties resulted from

U.S. drone strikes.

Again, this is the letter from Senator Paul to John Brennan. He asks:

Please indicate how you define credible evidence and what

process is in place to evaluate the legitimacy of alleged

civilian casualties.

Which countries have publicly stated their support for U.S.

drone strikes within their territory? Have any publicly

indicated support for U.S. drone strikes in the long term?

In this letter:

How relevant is the opinion of the public in the countries

where U.S. drone strikes are ongoing? In those countries, how

would you characterize public opinion toward U.S. drone

strikes?

In light of civilian casualties caused by the extensive use

of drone strikes under your guidance, do you continue to

stand by your remark that ``sometimes you have to take life

to save lives?''

Do you condone the CIA's practice of counting certain

civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes as militants simply

because they were of military age and within close proximity

of a target? Do you believe such accounting provides an

accurate picture of our drone program?

These are key questions to be asked for a nominee to the Central Intelligence Agency and they deserve answers before anyone makes a vote yes or no.

What changes to the CIA review process will you put in

place or have you attempted to put in place in your previous

role to prevent further unintentional killings of U.S.

dissidents? What role did you play in approving the drone

strike that led to the death of the under-aged U.S. citizen,

son of al-Awlaki? Unlike his father, he had not renounced his

U.S. citizenship. Was this young man the intended target

of the U.S. drone strike which took his life? Further, do

you reject the subsequent claim apparently originating

from anonymous U.S. Government sources--

Always a concern when you hear anonymous U.S. Government sources--

that the young man had actually been a military age male of

20 years or more of age, something that was later proven

false by the release of his birth certificate.

Senator Paul goes on in the letter:

Do you believe that the inadvertent killing of civilians

and the resulting anger from local populations should cause

us to limit rather than expand the drone program?

Key question:

The CIA has and will reportedly continue to have

authorization to carry out lethal drone strikes in Pakistan,

autonomously and without approval from the President. Will

you seek to reduce or eliminate this practice or keep it in

place? Will you hold to the discussed 1 or 2 year phaseout of

this authority or work to expedite the phaseout?

I could go on and on because these are key questions Senator Paul asked, and it all gets back to the fundamental question of: Do you believe the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial?

So as I look at this letter of January 25 and look at the questions being asked:

Do you believe the lethal drone strikes constitute

hostilities as defined by the War Powers Act?

On what legal basis does the administration derive

authorization to conduct such strikes?

Then the President's own words:

The President has stated that al-Qaida has been decimated.

Do you believe this assertion is correct and, if so, what is

it that we are now targeting if not al-Qaida?

That is a fundamental question that came up in the hearings with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. When she came to the Senate, to the Foreign Relations Committee, they changed their tune and said: No, it was core al-Qaida; not just al-Qaida but core al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but, fundamentally, the tune has changed.

Senator Paul goes on:

Is the U.S. drone strike strategy exclusively focused on

targeting al-Qaida or is it also conducting counterinsurgency

operations against militants seeking to further undermine

their governments such as in Yemen? Would you support

expansion of the CIA's drone program in Mali to provide

support to counterterrorism operations?

We all know what happened there and the impact in Benghazi and the concern that those who weren't captured or tried in Benghazi for the atrocities there went then to Mali. So, again, a key question.

The Senator goes on:

Do you believe a long-term, sustained drone strike program

can eliminate all threats to the American people or

completely eliminate al-Qaida as you have indicated in your

intent? If not, how would we eventually wind down the drone

program? At what point do you believe drone strikes will

reach the point of diminishing returns? If so, can it be done

on the scale the drone program operates on now or would it

have to be expanded?

I was going to specifically ask Senator Paul to discuss this question:

Do you support the Attorney General's 2012 guidance to the

NCTC that it may deliberately collect, store and continually

assess massive amounts of data on all U.S. citizens for

potential correlations to terrorism, even if the U.S.

citizens targeted have no known ties to terrorists?

That gets into the whole thing we started on earlier today. Where is the role of individual freedoms, the right to trial, the right to be heard, the right to present their case? What about the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights?

The final question here to Mr. Brennan is this:

Please describe in detail the steps you have taken as

assistant to the President as well as transparency measures

you would support as Director of the CIA to improve the

transparency of the administration's counterterrorism policy.

Mr. President, I would just say that they are extremely well-thought- out

questions by a very thoughtful Senator and questions to which the American people would like to have answers.

There is more to the letter, but I would like to take a second to ask Senator Paul if he feels those have been adequately addressed and if he feels he has gotten closer to the solution to the question of, do you believe the President has the power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial? That would be my question to Senator Paul.

(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the chair.)