Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to follow up on some of the comments made by my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to have this debate. We need a budget. The American people want it, they deserve it, they have been without it for 4 years.

It is because we want this debate and it is because we want this issue debated in public that we have this concern. In other words, as the Senator from Texas pointed out a moment ago, there are a lot of issues that were discussed and debated and voted on when we were addressing the budget resolution a couple of months ago. We were here until 5 in the morning making sure we could get through all the amendments.

At no point during that very lengthy discussion in connection with the budget resolution did we discuss or address or have a vote on or in any way make a decision regarding the debt ceiling. That is a separate debate, one that did not come up in connection with the budget resolution. It is a debate that needs to happen. Just as the discussion of the budget resolution needs to move forward, we do need to have a public debate and ultimately a vote with regard to the debt ceiling. The American people expect us to have this debate. They expect us to have it in the light of day and not under cover of darkness behind closed doors, resulting in one of those infamous backroom deals that have given Washington its often much-deserved bad name.

The debt ceiling was not in the bill. It was not in the budget resolution. We have not debated it. All we are asking for is that the other side agree that they will not use budget reconciliation as a mechanism for working a backroom deal to raise the debt limit. The American people expect us to debate this, not in secret but in public. That is what we are trying to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, earlier today we were asked to give our consent to go to conference on the budget resolution. This is an important matter because we have now gone more than 4 years without a budget. This has been of great concern to many of us. I do not think there is one Member of this body who would not want Congress to pass a budget this year. We would like to see that happen. We need that.

We do, however, have a concern--some of us--with the request that we go to conference without certain assurances. Most important, we want a very simple assurance that any conference report that results from this conference will not be used to raise the debt limit. The reason for this is simple. This is an important matter. At a time when we have racked up about $17 trillion in debt, we want some assurances that this important decision will be made under the regular order of the Senate; that the normal rules of the Senate will apply; that this will not be negotiated behind closed doors in a backroom deal. The American people deserve more. They demand more.

Those who may have questioned our motives in connection with this, I ask them a very simple question: Will you give us an assurance that you are not going to use the conference report to raise the debt limit? If they can answer that question to our satisfaction, if they can simply give me an assurance that is not what they are going to use it for, then I will gladly give my consent. So I invite that to be the topic of discussion.

All this begs the question. Why would they not give that assurance? What on Earth is wrong with the regular order? What on Earth is wrong with giving an assurance that, in connection with a conference report on a budget resolution, they would not be willing to say: If we are going to raise the debt limit, we are going to do it under the regular order.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, we want to proceed with this as well. We want a budget. It has been 4 years and it has been far too long. What we want to avoid is a deal negotiated behind closed doors, a backroom deal to raise the debt limit.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.

I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, the kind of abuse, the kind of betrayal of trust described in the resolution proposed by my friend and my colleague from Connecticut is different in kind from that described in my resolution. The kind of abuse involved in my resolution involves the intentional taking, the first-degree premeditated murder of a human life. I think that deserves its own consideration, and on that basis I object.

Madam President, I rise to ask my colleagues once again to join me in expressing the sense of the Senate that governments at all levels have a compelling interest in preventing and punishing the practices of late-term abortions under unsafe, unsanitary, and illegal circumstances.

It seems as though every day we find new evidence that this problem is much bigger than we could have feared previously. Earlier this week, of course, Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for severing the spines of newborn infants, and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a pregnant mother who came to see Dr. Gosnell for care.

The shocking details of the Gosnell case have, despite the best efforts of

the mainstream media to cover it up, become national news. The abortion industry has spun into action, trying to isolate and condemn Gosnell as an aberration. Planned Parenthood cited Gosnell's ``appalling crimes.'' NARAL called him a ``butcher.'' On this very floor last week, Gosnell's actions were decried by pro-choice Senators as ``reprehensible'' and ``an outrage . . . a violation of everything we hold dear.''

But Kermit Gosnell has only been sentenced to life in prison and condemned as a monster for doing things for which--had he done them just a few seconds earlier or a few centimeters in a different direction--those same voices might have hailed him as a hero and not as a monster.

Remember, President Obama himself, while serving in the State legislature of Illinois, voted against legislation that would have protected the civil and constitutional rights of infants--human beings--born alive.

At a recent hearing in the Florida State Legislature, a Planned Parenthood representative refused even to acknowledge that newborn babies have the right to life. In recent weeks, undercover videos have caught abortion clinics around the country casually offering to kill infants born alive. Just this week, evidence emerged about similar abuses at a clinic in Texas.

This has nothing to do with health care or even with medical negligence but with murder--a war on women and children waged under the guise of legitimate health care.

As much as we might want to agree that Kermit Gosnell is an aberration, recent revelations, indeed, suggest otherwise. A mounting body of evidence seems to suggest that at least among some late-term abortion providers and advocates, the immorality of infanticide may be an open question.

The abortion industry's defense of late-term abortion has always been based on a rejection of innate human dignity. How could it be otherwise? But as technology advances, their case for late-term abortion increasingly rejects medical science as well.

We now know as a scientific fact that unborn children, after about 20 weeks of development, can feel pain. We know Dr. Gosnell's victims squirmed and cried before he severed their spinal cords, and we know that every day medical technology progresses our abortion laws fall further behind the science.

It is a tragedy all on its own that even today our laws defining human life depend more on geography than biology. The unsettling question before us now is: Has an industry whose profits have always depended on dehumanizing unborn children gone even further and dehumanized children born alive too?

The case of Kermit Gosnell, the undercover videos, and recent clinic scandals around the country all hint at a terrifying answer. Yet right now we just don't know. My resolution would call on governments at all levels to find out--to find out what the late-term abortion industry is up to and to take any appropriate and necessary measures to prevent and punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal practices.

Some might say this resolution is a symbolic gesture, and I and others have introduced more concrete legislation. Perhaps. But even so, symbols are themselves important. It is important that the strong stand for the weak; that we, in the world's greatest deliberative body, lend our voices to the voiceless; that we, representatives of the most powerful Nation on Earth, promise to protect the weakest, most innocent, and most vulnerable among us and punish those who would do our children harm.

Yes, I would.

I ask unanimous consent I be given 60 seconds to answer the question and then I will yield.

Madam President, in short, in response to the question from my colleague from Texas, I do find it difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this resolution. I also find it difficult to understand how this can be put on the same plate--as serious as other kinds of abuses are, as serious as other acts of medical malpractice may be, this one is different. This is about premeditated first degree murder of the most defenseless, most vulnerable people in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I speak in opposition to this amendment.

While I understand the concern underlying it, I also have significant concerns as to what this would do. In some circumstances, this could increase the cost of materials in some Federal projects by close to 25 percent. So if we are talking about $1 billion worth of materials, we are talking almost $250 million of increased cost for certain materials this could bring about.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize eight exemplary Utahns and future officers in the U.S. military. Each of them will begin their education at a military academy this fall.

Jonson Henry, graduating from Park City High School, will be attending the Naval Academy. An accomplished runner, he was captain of his cross-country team and participated in track and field. He is an avid outdoorsman and an accomplished musician. He was also an AP Scholar with Distinction.

Phillip Lowry, a Weber High School graduate, will be attending the Naval Academy. Phillip was an Eagle Scout, captain of his rugby team, and accomplished in Jujitsu and mixed martial arts. He was also an accomplished musician and an AP Distinguished Scholar. His Father is currently Active Duty with the Army and is serving in Afghanistan.

Amanda Ley, from Viewmont High School and Northwestern Preparatory School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. Amanda was a member of the National Honor Society and earned her Academic Letter. She was captain of the swim team and actively volunteered with South Davis Community Hospital. Her father is an Air Force veteran.

McKenna Cox graduated from Mountain View High School and will be attending the Air Force Academy. McKenna was a student body officer and a member of the National Honor Society. A great example of a student athlete, she was Academic All-State in soccer and was the captain of the basketball team, the softball team, and the cross-country team. She organized food drives for the Utah Food Bank and care packages for the military.

William Estes, from Dugway High School and attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, was a National Honor Society and participated in ice hockey, baseball, track and field, and was Academic All-State in basketball. He was also band president and participated in the JROTC. His father is currently serving in the Army.

Russell Landes will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Russell attended the American Leadership Academy, where he was student body president. He was captain of the wrestling team and also participated on the football and track teams. He also earned his Eagle Scout award.

Benjamin Lemon, from Bountiful High School and the University of Utah, will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Benjamin was a member of the National Honor Society and earned his Eagle Scout. He was captain of the football team and participated in wrestling and the track and field team. His brother also served honorably in the armed services, where he was wounded in the service of his country.

Thomas Maddox, a graduate of Juan Diego Catholic High School, will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was an outstanding scholar and captain of the lacrosse and ice hockey teams. He has over 75 hours of community service. He was student government class officer and founder and president of the Patriots Club.

One of my greatest honors as a Senator has been to get to know and nominate each of these young men and women. I know that our Nation's future is bright in the hands of these exemplary individuals who have distinguished themselves amongst their peers.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 133 submitted earlier today. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, this week in Philadelphia, a jury is deliberating the case of Kermit Gosnell. That doctor has been charged and tried for some of the most gruesome atrocities ever encountered by the American justice system.

As the grand jury opened its harrowing report:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and

endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and

illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third

trimester of pregnancy--and then murdered these newborns by

severing their spinal cords with scissors.

Yet according to defense attorneys, Dr. Gosnell is not a monster, not a serial killer, not a predator of vulnerable mothers and their helpless children. He is just an abortionist.

Mr. President, let me suspend my speech momentarily. I understand my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, wishes to make a motion.

Reserving the right to object, as my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, is aware, we have only just received the language of this resolution in the last few minutes. Without having to read it closely, I am reluctant to grant consent at this time. But I will say I am heartened, and I think all Americans should be heartened, and the entire pro-life movement should be heartened by the clear implication that health regulations should be equitably applied and enforced on abortion clinics as they are on other health care facilities.

Part of the reason we fear that Dr. Gosnell's clinic, if, in fact, the allegations are proven true, was not a rare outlier is that abortion clinics are generally held to the same safety standards as hospitals, ambulatory, surgical facilities, et cetera. So on that basis, I object.

Mr. President, if I may continue my remarks which I started a few moments ago.

According to his defense attorneys, then, Dr. Gosnell is not a monster, not a serial killer, not a predator of helpless mothers and their children. He is just an abortionist. In this context, Dr. Gosnell's alleged crimes were just abortions, and his facility, the so- called Women's Medical Society--reportedly strewn about with animal waste, infectious instruments, and fetal remains--was not, as the grand jury alleged, ``a baby charnel house.'' No, it was just a clinic.

His staff of allegedly unqualified, untrained frauds were not coconspirators in the contract killing of newborns. No, they were just health care providers. And the failure of local health inspectors and political officials to investigate repeated claims of Dr. Gosnell's barbarism was just a bureaucratic oversight--perhaps--or perhaps, as the

panicked abortion industry would have us believe, Dr. Gosnell is an outlier, an outcast, nothing like the professional, competent, law- abiding late-term abortion providers around the country. But then again perhaps not.

Just a few weeks ago, a Planned Parenthood representative testified before the Florida State legislature and suggested that infants born alive during botched abortions might not be entitled to medical attention--in clear violation of Federal law, to say nothing of fundamental human rights and dignity. Even since then, undercover videos have caught late-term abortion providers telling pregnant mothers that even if their babies are accidentally born alive during the procedure, even if the law requires them to treat the newborn as a patient and citizen of the United States, and also telling them that even if the baby is born somewhere other than their clinic, they will see to it that the child does not survive.

So is the case of Dr. Gosnell an outlier or is the legitimacy of the late-term abortion industry merely a lie? The American people deserve to know.

Yesterday I introduced legislation to end the practice of late-term abortion in Washington, DC, after 20 weeks, the point at which science tells us unborn children can feel pain, in light of the chilling details coming in from Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and various abortion clinics around the country that late- term abortions on pain-capable, unborn children are an important issue we need to debate.

Opinions will obviously be divided, as they always are on abortion- related issues. But we owe it to the American people to see if we can find common ground to protect innocent women and innocent children.

But there should be no division or controversy surrounding the sense- of-the-Senate resolution I called up a few minutes ago. The resolution has the support of every Republican Senator, pro-life and pro-choice Members alike.

The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate, affirming: The duty of the State and Federal Government agencies to protect women and children from violent criminals posing as health care providers; the equal human and constitutional rights of fully born infant children; the need to prevent and punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal abortion practices.

One of the newborns Dr. Gosnell is accused of murdering, ``Baby Boy A,'' was born alive--breathing and moving--to an underage girl almost 30 weeks pregnant. Witnesses describe Gosnell severing the baby's spine, discarding the child in a shoebox, and joking that he was big enough ``to walk me to the bus stop.''

Joking. Joking.

A clinic employee estimated Baby Boy A's birth weight at about 6 pounds, larger and heavier than two of my own children when they were born.

If there are other Kermit Gosnells out there waging their own personal war on women, we need to know about it, and we need to stop them.

I don't think I can make a stronger argument for this resolution than the one the grand jury in the Gosnell case made itself:

Let us say right up front we realize this case will be used

by both sides of the abortion debate. We ourselves cover a

spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion.

For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not

about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and

disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We

find common ground in exposing what happened here and in

recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever

happening again.

I hope the Senate too, whose Members cover a similar spectrum of views on abortion, can follow the grand jury's lead to find common ground in the pursuit of truth and justice for American women and children.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the concern shared by my friend and colleague from Connecticut. These are all things we all ought to be thinking about, be concerned about, and be debating from time to time. To reiterate one of the points we need to make here: As with all health-care-providing institutions, all clinics, all hospitals need to be subjected to the scrutiny of some outside regulator. They need to have some accountability to those who will ensure that conditions there are safe, that the treatments being provided are effective, and that they are not going to result in more injury, in more disease, in life-threatening conditions, in emergency responders who show up not being able to access the patient in time because the hallways are too narrow, the exits are blocked or the hallways are crowded.

I appreciate the insight from my colleague from Connecticut and thank him for his remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Madam President, what the majority leader requested yesterday was not regular order. What would be consistent with regular order would be to send the Senate-passed budget over to the House of Representatives. And what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve sending the American people to conference; it involved sending a small number of people to conference. And what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve simply getting to a budget on which both Houses could agree. I do not think there is anyone here who would object to that--not one of us whom I am aware of.

What we do object to--what I strongly object to--is any procedural trick that could be used to negotiate, behind closed doors in a backroom deal, an agreement to raise the debt limit or to raise taxes. The American people do not want that. They will not accept it, and frankly they deserve better.

I have to admit I stood in a state of disbelief for a moment yesterday as I heard the majority leader say something to my friend, my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas. I at first assumed I must have misunderstood him because I thought I heard him utter words consistent with the suggestion that my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, was a schoolyard bully. I was certain the majority leader could not have meant that. He probably did not say that.

Unfortunately, as I reviewed news accounts later on yesterday, I discovered that is exactly what he had said. Only the majority leader can tell us exactly what the majority leader meant by that. It is not my place to malign his motives. If I were do so, it would run me up against Senate rule XIX. Part 2 of Senate rule XIX says that no Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another Senator, or to other Senators, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

Certainly that would have been in violation of rule XIX, part 2, had the majority leader actually said that and intended to do that, because when you accuse a colleague of being a schoolyard bully, it certainly is not a compliment. It is, in fact, accusing them of doing something or being something unbecoming. I, therefore, will leave it to the majority leader to tell us what exactly he meant. Things happen on this floor. Things happen in the legislative process. Things happen when we get into heated discussions about matters of important public policy that probably should not happen. Sometimes we say words we did not intend to say. Sometimes we say things that in the moment of weakness, perhaps we intended to say but should not have said.

If, in fact, the majority leader slipped and said something he did not mean to say or recognizes now that he should not have said, then I invite him to come forward. I am confident my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, will promptly and frankly accept his apology.

If, on the other hand, this was something else, then I think we need to examine this more closely. It is important to reiterate there certainly could not have been any legitimate basis for making this accusation about the junior Senator from Texas. All the junior Senator from Texas was asking is that if, in fact, we are being asked to give our consent, our unanimous consent, that means the consent of every Senator present, to send this budget resolution to conference committee, that it carry one important but simple qualification; that is, that this conference committee not be used as a ruse, whereby we create an environment in which you could develop a secret backroom deal for raising the debt limit or raising taxes without going through the regular order.

That is the furthest thing that I can think of from being a schoolyard bully, simply making a very reasonable request that we go by the normal regular order rules of the Senate in order to do that. If there is any reason why my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, could ever be accused of being a schoolyard bully, I am not aware of it. It certainly was not evident in yesterday's debate and discussion on the floor. We are owed an explanation, to the extent that anyone was making the suggestion and, in fact, meant that.

At the end of the day, I do not think any of us can dispute the fact that we face very difficult challenges in our country and that many of those challenges weigh heavily on us as Senators.

That is why sometimes people say things they later regret, but that is what apologies are for.

At the same time, we can speak with absolute certainty and unmistakable clarity in saying that while different Americans might approach this issue differently, while different Americans might take a different approach to raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling, one issue on which almost all Americans are united is the fact that these things ought to be debated and discussed in open and not through a secret backroom deal.

The dignity of this process, the dignity of this body, our commitment to honor the constitutional oaths we have all taken as Senators demands nothing less.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield to the Senator.

I appreciate the cooperation and friendship of the senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I discussed an initiative I launched this week called Protect2A to give voice to the millions of second amendment supporters around the United States who are very concerned about Congress enacting any new gun control measures.

I am pleased to announce that we now have over 3,000 responses from citizens all across this country who are sharing their stories, their experiences, and their opinions about why they feel we should do everything in our power to protect their second amendment rights. I had only a brief time to share some of those stories yesterday and wish to use a few minutes today to share a few more.

Kathy from the State of Virginia writes:

My husband and I are senior citizens. He is a veteran of

the U.S. Army. Over the past several years, we have seen our

constitutional rights trampled and twisted, until we no

longer trust that our government has our well-being as its

primary concern. Last year, for the first time in our lives,

we bought a gun, not only to ensure our safety against

criminals, but to protect and defend our God-given rights as

citizens. The most basic right of all mankind, the right to

life itself, no longer exists in this country. Protecting our

rights, the few the government has left us, is of the utmost

importance to us and we will do everything necessary to hold

onto those rights, regardless of the source of the threats

against them. God bless America.

Emily from Pennsylvania writes:

I am 19 years old and I want to protect myself as soon as I

am legal to. As a young female living in Allentown, PA, I

don't like walking in the city because I'm afraid of

something happening to me. I believe in the power of the

Constitution and especially my second amendment rights. I am

a strong conservative who believes that the Constitution is

our guiding power and not the cronyism that seems to blanket

DC. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. As soon

as I am legal, I want to take gun safety classes and purchase

a handgun of my very own. I like to think that I can protect

my own life as well as another person whose life may be in

danger. Gun control doesn't solve anything. Criminals will

get guns no matter what. I want to be able to protect myself

as well as someone else. Please don't take away my second

amendment rights.

Well said, Emily.

William from Connecticut submitted the following statement:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, my brother was confronted by

three armed thugs in a parking lot. Out of their stolen car,

with a stolen shotgun, they tried to rob him. Much to their

surprise, my brother had his legally owned pistol (with a

legal carry permit). He thwarted this and saved his own life

and held them at bay until the police arrived. Without this

second amendment he would've been another victim to the

growing street crime that these bills do not address.

These are the rights we are trying to protect by requiring a 60-vote threshold on any new gun control legislation. In so doing, we are trying to prevent the ability of Members to push through legislation before anyone has had time to read and evaluate the language and then tell the American people what that language means for them, what the language would mean for their rights. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are faced with today.

Yesterday Senators Toomey and Manchin announced a new proposal that is widely expected to replace the current language on the background checks in this bill. Yet, as of this morning, this very moment, not a single Senator has been provided the legislative text of this provision. Because the background check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation, it is critical that we all know what is in the bill before we vote on it.

As I have argued on this floor, in the national media, and back home in my home State of Utah, we should not be legislating by negotiating closed-door, backroom deals away from the eyes of the American people. We should not be voting before we read and understand exactly how these proposals will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether we can say with any level of certainty they will reduce crime. This is exactly why we need more debate and why I ask my colleagues to vote no on cloture--so Senators and the American people may fully understand the consequences of this legislation.

To be clear, the vote we will have this morning will be to end debate on whether the Senate should take up a bill, the very heart of which is being concealed from the Senate and concealed from the American people as of this very moment. Proponents say the people deserve a vote. Don't they deserve to know what they are voting on? I think they do.

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

Madam President, for several weeks now Washington and the rest of the country have been debating several new gun control proposals. Along with a number of my colleagues, including the minority leader, I have declared my intention to resist an immediate vote on any new restrictions that would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens rather than reduce violent crime in America.

Unfortunately, the current gun control proposals would do just that. More than 2 weeks ago, we informed the majority leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring this legislation to the floor. We have taken this step under our Senate rules and procedures for three principal reasons.

First, the Senate serves an important function in our Republic by encouraging deliberation and making it more

difficult for a temporary majority to impose its will unilaterally. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate's rules and procedures allow for meaningful debate and help ensure that a bare majority of Senators cannot impose controversial legislation on the American people without robust debate, discussion, and broad-based and bipartisan consensus.

Contrary to the statements made by the President and by some of my friends across the aisle and even a few from within my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. Quite the opposite. By objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the Senate and the American people would have at least 3 additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether it might have any significant impact on violent crime.

Already we have seen consensus against passing any new gun legislation--at least not without broad bipartisan support.

During the recent budget debate, I offered an amendment to establish a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new gun legislation. Six Democratic Senators voted with a nearly united Republican caucus to support my amendment by a vote of 50 to 49.

That vote demonstrated that a bare majority of Senators, including at least six Democrats, believe that new gun legislation should have broad bipartisan support in the Senate before it is passed and before it has the opportunity to become law.

A 60-vote threshold will help ensure that new gun laws are not forced through the Senate with the narrow support of just one party.

Second, this debate is about a lot more than just magazine clips and pistol grips. It is about the purpose of the second amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government.

At its core, the second amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property. Any limitation on this fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection.

Government cannot be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe. This is troubling to many Americans. Any legislation that would restrict our basic rights to self-defense deserves serious and open debate. Further, as we have seen just today, Washington sometimes prefers to negotiate backroom deals made in secret far from the eyes of the American people rather than engaging in thorough, open, and transparent debate right on the Senate floor.

The day before the majority leader has set the vote to proceed, the bill's critical components are still not there. Right before we have set the vote for the motion to proceed to the bill, we still do not know what these critical components look like. We have no legislative text to evaluate the so-called compromise language on background checks. We have no sense of what amendments, if any amendments at all, might be allowed to be offered.

So requiring a 60-vote threshold helps us solve some of those problems. It helps us ensure that we have a meaningful debate rather than a series of backroom deals to push controversial legislation through Congress with solely a bare majority to back it up.

Finally, many of the provisions we expect to see in the bill are both constitutionally problematic and would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding American citizens. Some of the proposals--for example, universal background checks--would allow the Federal Government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights.

One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill, based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, would allow the Attorney General of the United States to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns, something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so.

You see, the Federal Government has no business monitoring where or how often we go to church, what books and newspapers we read, whom we vote for, our health conditions, what we ate for breakfast, and the details of our private lives, including our lawful exercise of rights protected by the second amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Such limitations may, of course, at times make it harder for the government to do what it believes it needs to do. But we have to remember, the Constitution was not written to maximize or protect the convenience of our government. The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty, and thankfully so. We must not narrow the application of constitutional protections in haste, nor should we allow a bare majority to jeopardize the basic rights of the American people, rights protected in the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Senate and the American people are engaged in an important debate. I look forward to this debate. I hope others will join me and my colleagues in demanding that our discussions take place in full view of the American people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Virginia for his cooperation in allowing me this time.

The President of the United States has spent the last several weeks evoking the tragedy of Sandy Hook and highlighting the voices of the victims in an effort to promote his gun control proposals. He has not explained to the American people how any of these new gun control measures would have prevented that or any other terrible tragedy or how any of these measures would reduce gun violence in any measurable way. Instead, his proposals would serve primarily to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Recently, I launched a project called Protect2A, which is an attempt to reach out to those who are reluctant to see changes to our Bill of Rights, our Bill of Rights eroded, and believe Members of Congress should be doing everything in their power to protect the second amendment rights of citizens. This is also as we should be protecting all the rights protected by our Constitution.

I am pleased to announce the response to Protect2A has been overwhelming. In less than 2 days, we have received well over 1,000 responses on my Web site. The vast majority of them recognized that the President's proposal will not make them safer but will, rather, result in limiting their rights as law-abiding citizens.

It is with this in mind I would now like to ensure their voices have become an important part of this debate. I have several quotes from Americans across the country who oppose these measures and wish Senators to stand up for them and their constitutional rights.

Roger, from my home State of Utah, writes as follows:

As a veteran, I've had too many ``brothers'' and

``sisters'' make sacrifices to uphold the Constitution of the

United States. Their blood will not be in vain. While I

believe our rights are not granted by government, I believe

that documentation of these rights in

the United States Constitution has helped us maintain our

freedoms. Why is the Second Amendment important to me?

Because without it, the rest of our rights can simply be

wiped away.

Jim from Louisiana writes as follows:

I lived through the Los Angeles riots. My wife and I were

living in Silver Lake. For 5 days we watched the warm glow of

businesses being burned on two sides. For 5 days we never saw

a law enforcement officer. We were on our own. My wife and I

were unarmed. The couple across the street had a pair of

shotguns, and the elderly gentleman next to them had a .38

service revolver from his days in the LAPD. After it became

clear that law enforcement had abandoned the citizens of Los

Angeles, we took shifts watching the street and who was

coming and going. Our neighbors brought us coffee in the

middle of the night, a night that was lit with the flames of

burning buildings. Twice cars came up our street, saw us

armed, and turned around. I have no doubt that the drivers

had things on their minds other than getting home to loved

ones.

As soon as I could, I went out and bought my first handgun.

I will not be disarmed. I will not be a victim. And I will

not let my boys be victims. Legal or not, I am giving them my

guns as they get mature enough to use them. If our government

is so out of touch they will make law-abiding citizens

criminals, it's just something my family will have to deal

with. But we will not disarm.

David, from Missouri, wrote the following:

I am a handicapped 78-year-old male living alone. I have

applied for and received a conceal-carry permit, which I feel

is my Second Amendment right. I hope and pray that I never

have to use my firearm, but will if challenged to do so.

Please don't treat the subject of the Second Amendment like

you did with my health care, by passing legislation that you

didn't even read.

Carolyn from New Jersey writes:

Protection of the 2A is necessary in order to preserve the

integrity of our Constitution. The ``ruling elite'' cannot

pick and choose which amendments they like, and which they

don't. We, the people, are sovereign citizens, and we are

protected by the Constitution.

Annie, from Georgia, writes the following:

Dear Senator, how I wish we as a civilized nation did not

have to go through this in order to defend our 2nd Amendment

that has been in place for all these years. It is very

important that we the citizens keep our weapons to be able to

defend ourselves from criminals as well as to send a message

to the government that we are not under any dictatorship. We

are a free country, and we are ready to defend our position

against anyone who tries to take away what rights we have. To

me, personally, my guns are my defense to protect my family,

and I have had to make use of them for that reason in the

past and will do it again since the police cannot be

available fast enough . . . Please protect our rights,

because once we lose this amendment, we are defenseless and

others will follow. I do not want to live again in a country

where citizens have no ``voice,'' where there is no democracy

and the people live in fear of what they say. I am a legal

citizen of the USA, by choice. I am an American, and I love

this country like my own. Thanks so much for what you are

doing. Let our voices be heard.

Mr. President these are just a few of the excerpts. I ask unanimous consent to have the rest of these statements printed in the Record.

Madam President, under this budget, by the year 2020 we will be spending more every year on interest on our national debt than we spend on our national defense. This is alarming and ought to be a concern to every one of us. This amendment creates a point of order that would address this problem and all similar problems in the future with other budgets that have the same defect.

While we are on this note, I would like to add that I am concerned about the amendment process. I heard from our majority leader a few minutes ago a statement suggesting that he might cut off debate, cut off the amendment process--this after he promised us at the beginning of the week that there would be unlimited amendments. And he repeated that phrase twice.

It is imperative that we finish this job. Each of us was elected to do a job. Each of us deserves to have our amendments called up. We have no business taking a 2-week vacation until we have gone through every amendment that any Senator from either side of the aisle wants to present.

Thank you.

I would ask the chairperson of the Budget Committee how many more traunches there might be.

Mr. President, my amendment would establish a point of order for any piece of legislation brought before this body that would undermine the sacred right protected by the second amendment to bear arms. It is important that we safeguard this right so the government doesn't intrude upon it. That is why I have introduced this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act for the consideration of the pending amendment No. 673 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program was established to compensate local taxing authorities, such as counties, for the tax revenue lost due to the presence of Federal public land. Unfortunately, the funding for this program has never been offered to the degree necessary that it would, in fact, offset this revenue. In States such as mine, where most of the land is owned by the Federal Government, this is a big problem because our taxing authorities are not able to get the revenue they need from this land. As a result, programs ranging from public education to fire and safety programs--the basic services of government--are not able to be met because of inadequate revenue.

This amendment seeks to ensure that funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program is at least roughly equivalent to the actual lost property tax revenues due to the presence of Federal public land. I urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Let's do it.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise my voice in this important dialogue about the budget currently pending before this body.

I am thrilled as, first, we are actually having this debate. It has been 4 long years since we passed a budget. I am deeply disappointed the President's budget is not part of this discussion. He missed his first Monday in February requirement, and it must not fit into his schedule to produce one until the second week of April.

Budgets are economic documents, but they are also much more than that. Budgets reflect moral choices we make as a nation. They shape the kind of society we will build for the future. Budgets are about setting priorities.

Republicans realize we have a moral obligation to spend the American people's hard-earned dollars wisely. When those tax dollars are paid into the government, we have an obligation to be careful with them. We should spend them only in areas that we need to cover a constitutionally authorized function of government and not $1 more. That is why we support reforms to fix programs that Washington should be funding, to eliminate programs that it shouldn't be funding and to balance the budget in the process.

We all know the Federal Government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and the President should work with Congress to identify and remove wasteful areas within the budget. My office has been focused on a very simple message that seems to make sense to every American: Cut this, not that.

The Federal Government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and instead of targeting waste, it is unfortunate the President is using fear-mongering tactics to scare Americans into believing cuts have to come first from important priorities--priorities such as first responders, law enforcement, national security, and educators.

The President and his allies in Congress want to increase spending and raise taxes. Republicans, meanwhile, want to prioritize spending and keep taxes low. The President is intentionally making cuts to government spending as painful as possible to force more tax increases. Cut this, not that.

This is a debate about priorities. Republicans have identified trillions of dollars in savings that would come from eliminating waste and reforming programs rather than cutting important essential services. The President is choosing to cut the most visible items in order to build opposition to any further spending reductions.

The debate should not be about whether we should cut, but, instead, how we should cut in order to preserve our ability to afford our true national priorities.

Here are some examples of the massive waste: $1 million spent taste testing food that would be served on Mars; $4.5 billion in improper food stamp payments used to purchase junk food, fast food, gourmet coffee, guns, and even alcohol; $1.5 billion for free and subsidized cell phones billed to the American taxpayer; $230 million spent on first-class and business-class travel.

I say to my colleagues and to the President of the United States, cut food testing on Mars, not teachers; cut free cell phones, not border security; cut premium first-class travel, not air traffic controllers; cut improper food stamp payments, not first responders.

The President's second inaugural address was an advertisement for the biggest, most expensive government our country has ever seen. It was a pitch for new government solutions, more government programs, and the promises of a government-made utopia. Of course, no mention was made about the future cost of the President's vision for the country, no mention was made about how we would pay for it, and no mention was made of the damage that will occur from our increasing debt and deficits.

Americans and Members of this body hear this message and get pulled into a debate over the proper size of government or whether a certain policy represents good government or bad government. We argue for a smaller or more limited government or for one that is more efficient or more affordable. Unfortunately, this is often where we fail to articulate a positive vision of what America looks like under the type of government we are striving to create. It is time to reframe this debate. It is time for us to focus on the kinds of principles that will lead us to the kind of country and the kind of society we want for our future and for ourselves.

Here is the principle I ask Americans and my colleagues in the Senate to consider: The opposite of bad government is not necessarily good government--at least not just good government. It isn't even necessarily limited government. The opposite of bad government is a strong civil society. A free and strong civil society is built on the innate desire of Americans to contribute freely to the betterment of the community. It is not the product of bureaucratic, centralized decisionmakers handing down rules and regulations for the rest of us to follow. A civil society is the result of the relationships that connect, bind, and strengthen us. It is derived from the condition in each of us to do our part to help those around us.

Civil society is where free individuals thrive and communities flourish. The interconnection of local communities has always been at the heart of our Nation. I am convinced our future success will be found in a return to that connectedness that has driven the American dream from the very beginning of our Nation.

We see the bonds of civil society when a parent instills values in a child, when a doctor heals a patient, when a teacher stays late to help a student learn to read, when a neighbor stops to help a neighbor, when a pastor inspires faith in a troubled soul. These are the keys to restoring our faith in the institutions of civil society and away from dependence on an administrative state full of so-called experts. ``We, the people'' does not mean a collective adherence to the agenda of the ruling class in Washington. It instead means that as Americans we share certain basic values and principles that when viewed as a whole help form and secure a more perfect union.

Americans' belief in civil society is grounded in bedrock principles of freedom, self-reliance, and self-governance. It is manifested in the form of historic American institutions, including the family, schools, churches, private groups, and civic organizations. These institutions of civil society teach the morals, values, and behaviors that instill faith, confidence, and trust between individuals, communities, and even government. The Constitution of this great Nation provides the framework that ennobles the vision of the individual while, at the same time, enabling the value of the institutions to create an environment where people are secure and prosperous and free.

It is important to remember that government cannot create a civil society, but it can kill it. Over the past 80 years, the Federal Government has expanded well beyond its constitutional limits. History demonstrates that as the power of the Federal Government increases, the ability to self-govern diminishes to a corresponding degree. As self- governance decreases, so too does the influence of the institutions of civil society. Soon, the ability to instill faith, competence, and trust among individuals and communities is replaced by the false promises of big government.

America is extraordinary, not because of who we are but because of what we do. Despite the current crushing weight of our bloated Federal bureaucracy, we can still see the strength of our Nation's fabric through the intertwining actions of the genuine heroes all around us. They are often described as the daily deeds that everyday citizens perform every day, but

they are powerful reminders of the strength of the American spirit and the values we share.

We have a moral obligation to future generations to make the peoples' priorities our priorities. The budget debate isn't just about dollars, it is about sense. It is about common sense. Rather than having a budget battle between Democratic and Republican priorities, we should be having a dialog about American priorities.

Republicans recognize that keeping dollars, decisions, priorities and, at the end of the day, power in the hands of the people is what has long made America the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Now is the time to return to that model. I encourage my colleagues to keep that very model in mind as we embark on this critical debate. Working together we can, we must, and we will restore the greatness and prosperity of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to extend my gratitude to my colleague from Maryland for allowing me to speak at this time. I appreciate that.

I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my good friend, the Senator from Texas, that would defund the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for the remainder of this fiscal year. Almost everything the American people were told about ObamaCare by the bill's proponents has turned out to be incorrect. We were promised it would save money. Now we know it will cost us more money. In 2 short years, the projected cost of the government health care takeover has ballooned from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion. We were told it would help a struggling economy. Now we know it will help smother a still struggling economy.

Employers cite ObamaCare as a principal reason and reluctance to hire new employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, ObamaCare's unconstitutional mandate--which the Supreme Court salvaged only by rewriting it as a tax--will kill between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs over the next 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce total American employment by 800,000 jobs by 2021.

In fairness, these are only projections. Although I believe even those projections are optimistic, they certainly contradict the fairytale arguments in favor of ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010, but they are still just best guesses.

The reason Senator Cruz introduced, and the reason why I support, this amendment is that the case against ObamaCare is rapidly moving from fears about tomorrow to pain that is felt today--right now.

In 2008, then-Senator Obama promised that his policies would lower health care premiums for the average American family by $2,500; 4 years later--and 2 years after President Obama signed ObamaCare into law--the Kaiser Foundation reports that family health insurance premiums have actually risen by $2,370. This is one of the things we were told we needed to pass the bill in order to find within the bill a $5,000 premium hike on working families.

What else have we found? We found that when the Federal Government requires businesses to provide health insurance for their full-time employees, businesses respond by cutting employee hours. Other companies have chosen to go farther and have simply laid employees off altogether or shifted those jobs overseas. Other companies have admitted that the cost ObamaCare adds to their business will have to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices.

Then there is the devastating impact ObamaCare has had on our medical device industry, which is targeted for a special punitive tax under this law. Companies from Boston Scientific, Stryker, Smith & Nephew and others are laying off workers and shipping their jobs overseas.

It is important to remember that each of these layoffs is, in a sense, a double strike against our economy. On the one hand, when people lose their jobs and their health insurance, the economy suffers in and of itself because of that impact. On the other hand, at the very same time this is occurring because ObamaCare and the rest of the President's failed agenda are weighing down our economy quite heavily, there are not enough new jobs being created for the recently unemployed Americans to fill. So the unemployed are not only staying unemployed for longer than normal, but they are also increasing demand for already overburdened government assistance programs. Thanks to ObamaCare, fewer people are working and paying into the system to support people ObamaCare is preventing from finding work and health insurance in the first place.

The beauty of the Cruz amendment is that we don't have to pass it to discover what it would do. We already know exactly what it would do. It would delay the implementation of ObamaCare and thereby save taxpayer money and American jobs. It would also restore a semblance of democratic accountability to a process that is badly in need of precisely that. After all, the various departments of the Federal Government have already issued some 20,000 pages' worth of regulations to formalize the ObamaCare system. In other words, the 2,700-page monstrosity Congress passed in 2010 was only a fraction of the final deforesting product.

Does anyone--literally anyone in the entire country--know what those 20,000 pages of regulations say? For all we know, we could be violating ObamaCare right now. Somewhere in those 20,000 pages there might be something saying we cannot do what we are doing at the moment.

Some might think I am exaggerating, but as we were all shocked to learn recently, 98 percent of individual health insurance policies in the United States right now are in violation of ObamaCare's standards. When ObamaCare goes into full effect, those Americans who own those policies will have to either buy more expensive insurance than they have now or pay the unconstitutional fine. The unconstitutional fine was, according to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional as a fine and could be sustained by the Supreme Court only because the Supreme Court rewrote the law as a tax instead of a fine.

To recap, ObamaCare is already costing us jobs that we need badly. It is raising health care costs. It is adding to our deficit and debt. It is forcing families off their health insurance policies they have and like. It is a Trojan horse for 20,000 of new law that no elected official wrote and not a single citizen in the United States has read.

Then, of course, there is the slow-motion train wreck of the law's implementation. A majority of States in the Union have already refused to set up their own ObamaCare exchanges. The bill has been passed and the American people now see what is in it and they want no part of it. So the Department of Health and Human Services is now charged with setting up Federal exchanges in those States, but they don't know how.

The clock is ticking. People are losing their health insurance. The exchanges are supposed to be ready to handle the massive influx of people dumped by ObamaCare onto those same exchanges, and the exchanges are not going to be there.

What will be there? Well, according to a report issued by the Associated Press, uninsured Americans will find a 15-page, 21-step application that will need approval from three separate Federal agencies. There are expected to be more than 4 million of these applications next year alone. Even as an advocate of the program says in this same AP story: The form will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete. That part of the process ``does not get you to the selection of a plan.''

ObamaCare is going to make doing your taxes feel like a round of golf. For this reason, there are some who believe the only way to expose ObamaCare and rescue the health care system is to let nature take its course, to let it go into effect as soon as possible. They say that the sooner it collapses, the sooner we can repeal it and start over.

The Senator from Texas and I and everyone else supporting this amendment reject that logic. We cannot in good conscience send millions of innocent Americans into a dangerously dysfunctional health care system run by unaccountable, if well-intentioned, bureaucrats. We will not sacrifice millions of families to prove a political point. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. The American people are not pawns in Washington's partisan political game. We work for them, not the other way around.

As public servants we have an obligation to protect the American people--those who elected us to serve. ObamaCare is going to hurt our country, our economy, our constituents, our friends, and our neighbors. It is the single greatest threat to our economy and to our health care system. Eventually, ObamaCare will be repealed. The American people will see the damage it does and demand that we scrap it and start over. But for now we must at least defund it, at least for the life of this continuing resolution--for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Senator Cruz and I have been assured that this amendment will fail and ObamaCare will move ahead as planned. If that is the will of the Senate, then so be it. But when ObamaCare does start to break down-- when waiting times start to grow, when costs start to explode, when taxes start to rise, when doctors and nurses start to quit, when hospitals start to close,

when businesses start to shutter, when take-home pay falls and jobs disappear, when patients and families truly find out what is in this bill, then the American people will know who is responsible for the catastrophe of ObamaCare and who, like the Senator from Texas, tried to help.

A few years ago, when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told Members of the House that you have to pass this 2,700 page bill in order to find out what is in it, she perhaps saw what we would be experiencing today or at least some aspect of it. But either way, today we now see what is in what they passed back then. We, as Members of the Senate, have had an opportunity to review this piece of legislation over the last few years. We know what economic impact this law is already having as its still massive implementation has moved forward.

We need to make ourselves accountable to the American people for what is in this law and what we now know is in this law. I, therefore, respectfully urge each and every one of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

The issues we are discussing are of profound importance to the American people for the reasons Senator Paul has identified. Americans have every reason to be concerned anytime decisions are made by government that impair one of the fundamental God-given protected rights that Americans have.

Anytime the government wants to intrude upon life or liberty or property, it must do so in a way that comports with time-honored, centuries-old understandings of due process. The rule of law, in other words, must operate in order to protect those God-given interests to make sure they are not arbitrarily, capriciously deprived of any citizen.

We are talking about the sanctity of human life. When the interest at stake is not just liberty or property but life itself, we have to protect it. We have to take steps to protect that. So I think it is important we carefully scrutinize and evaluate any government program that has the potential to deprive any American citizen of his or her life without due process of law.

I was concerned, as was Senator Paul, recently, when the Obama administration leaked what was characterized as a Department of Justice white paper outlining the circumstances--outlining the legal criteria that this administration would

use in deciding when and whether and under what circumstances to snuff out human life, the human life of an American citizen no less, using a drone.

The memorandum started out with certain somewhat predictable or familiar concepts. The memorandum started out by explaining an imminent standard, explaining that certainly could not happen absent an imminent threat to American national security, an imminent threat to American life, for example. When we think of imminence, we think of something that is emergent, we think of an emergency, something that is going on at the moment, which unless interrupted presents some kind of a dangerous threat.

Significantly, however, this is not how the Department of Justice white paper actually read. Although it used the word ``imminence,'' it defined imminence as something far different than we normally think of, than we as American citizens use this kind of language, certainly in any legal or constitutional analytical context.

If I could read from that memorandum, I would point out this condition of imminence is described as follows.

It says: The condition that an operational leader--an operational leader of a group presenting a threat to the United States--presented imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.

Wouldn't it be the Senator's understanding if something is imminent, it would need to be something occurring immediately?

If we are dealing with something that is imminent, we are talking about something that is about to occur, and it is urgent. That typically is the standard any time government officials in other contexts, law enforcement, for example--sometimes regretfully and tragically, law enforcement officers need to make a spur-of-the-moment judgment call in order to protect human life. Sometimes in doing that they have to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. It always turns on some kind of an imminent standard. It always turns on some kind of an emergent threat, something that is about to occur, that is occurring at the moment.

Yet we are told in black and white right here in this white paper this condition, imminence, does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. That begs the question, what then is the standard. Who then makes this determination? Presumably it is the President of the United States. Perhaps it is others reporting up in the chain of command to the President of the United States.

If actual imminence isn't required as part of this ostensibly imminent standard, what then is the standard? Is there any at all? If there is a standard, is it so wide, is it so broad you could drive a 747 right through it? If that is the case, how is that compatible with time-honored notions of due process, those notions deeply embedded in our founding documents, those notions we understand come from God and cannot be revoked by any government?

I wish I could say the imminence standard problem in the Department of Justice white paper is the only problem. It is not. We look to the very next page, the page dealing with feasibility of capture. One of the other standards outlined in the Department of Justice white paper outlining the circumstances in which the government of the United States may take a human life using a drone in a case involving a U.S. citizen is that the capture must be infeasible, and the United States must be continuing to monitor whether capture becomes feasible at some point.

As to this standard on page 8 of the Department of Justice white paper, it says:

Second, regarding to the feasibility of capture, capture

would not be feasible if it could not be physically

effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if

the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture

operation. Other factors such as undue risk to U.S. personnel

conducting a potential capture operation could also be

relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and

potentially time-sensitive inquiry.

In other words, they are saying it has to be something that could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window. What is the relevant window? The white paper makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to define what the relevant window is. Who then makes this determination, and according to what factors is that determination made?

Here yet again we have a standardless standard. We have a standard that is so broad, so malleable, so easily subject to so many varying interpretations, no one can reasonably look into this and decide who the government may kill with a drone and who the government may not kill with a drone. That is a problem, and that, it seems to me, is fundamentally incompatible with time-honored notions of due process. Would the Senator not agree with that assessment?

Would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

If the Senator will yield for a question, I will ask if the Senator was aware of the exchange some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had with Attorney General Holder this morning on the subject.

Was the Senator aware of the fact some of us asked Attorney General Holder for a more robust analysis than the series of memoranda authored by the Office of Legal Counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice's chief advisory body, and the fact that so far the Department of Justice has declined to make those available to members of the Judiciary Committee?

If I may supplement that question by describing what I encountered in connection with that, I expressed frustration to the Attorney General over the fact that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--who have significant oversight responsibilities with regard to the operation of the U.S. Department of Justice--have not had access to that memorandum. This is part of our oversight responsibilities. This is something we ought to be able to see, and so far it is not something we have been able to see. I encouraged the Attorney General to make available to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee those very documents, which he claimed add some additional insight and would give us some additional analysis above and beyond what this white paper is saying. I thought that might be relevant to the Senator in addressing my question.

In response to Senator Paul's question, I would like to add to the Senator's remarks and those of the junior Senator from Texas the fact that in the concluding paragraph of the Department of Justice white paper on this issue, the Department concludes as follows:

In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the

constraints described above would not result in a violation

of any due process rights.

It is a rather interesting conclusion, in light of the fact that two out of the three analytical points outlined above in the memorandum, in the white paper are themselves so broad as to be arguably meaningless or, at a minimum, capable of being interpreted in such a way as to subject American citizens to the arbitrary deprivation of their own right to live.

First, as I mentioned earlier, by proposing an imminent standard that leaves out anything imminent--in other words, it is not just peanut butter without the jelly; it is peanut butter without the peanut butter. There is no ``there'' there--they define out of existence the very imminent standard they purport to create and follow. That is not due process. It is the opposite of due process.

Secondly, they outline a set of circumstances in which this attack may occur, where capture is infeasible, and then they define an understanding of feasibility that is so broad as to render it virtually meaningless.

So at the conclusion of the memo--and the memo says:

In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the

constraints described above would not result in a violation

of any due process rights.

It is describing constraints that are not really constraints, and that is a problem. That amounts to a deprivation of due process.

In light of these circumstances, I think it really is imperative the American people, or those who serve in this body--at a minimum, those who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee--be given an opportunity to review the wholesale legal analyses identified by the Attorney General today that have been prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. This is the chief advisory body within the U.S. Department of Justice. It is the job of the fine lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel to render this advice, and we ought to have the benefit of that. At a minimum, we ought to have the benefit of that within the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So when I asked the Attorney General this morning whether he would make those available, I was surprised and a little frustrated when he declined to offer them immediately. He said he would check in with those he needed to consult with. I reminded him he is the Attorney General, and he does, in fact, supervise those who work in the Department of Justice.

I hope that is satisfactory and in response to the Senator's question.