Floor Statements

Mr. President, four years, four long years, that is how long Kentuckians and Americans from coast to coast have had to wait for Senate Democrats to perform their most basic of legislative responsibilities.

Later today, we hope, that long wait will come to an end when they finally release a budget plan.

Given what we have heard about that budget so far, it is obvious why they refused to release one for so many years.

We hear it won't prevent programs such as Medicare from going bankrupt.

We hear it contains yet more wasteful ``stimulus'' spending, spending that turns out to be a lot more effective at generating jokes for late- night comedians than jobs.

And in order to finance more spending, we hear it relies on more than $1 trillion--that is trillion with a T--in new taxes, including on the middle class. Remember, Washington Democrats already got more than $600 billion in taxes this year. So where is this new revenue going to come from, charities, the home mortgage interest deduction? Will they go after families and small businesses yet again?

At least there is one thing we almost certainly know: their budget will never balance--not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

If that was my vision for the country, frankly I would want to hide it from the American people too.

Look, a budget like that would be a disaster for our country. It would betray those who are going to need Medicare when they retire.

It would betray the younger Americans who would be forced to grapple with the consequences of Democrats' failure to get serious about the debt.

It would betray the hard-working middle-class families that simply can't afford higher taxes, especially in the Obama economy.

And if that is really the kind of budget Senate Democrats plan to offer, it would sacrifice Americans' hopes for sustained economic recovery at the altar of higher taxes and bloated, unaccountable government.

It would also draw an important contrast with the budget Republicans put forward yesterday.

Because here is the thing: Republicans believe we should be growing the economy, not the government--and the House Republican budget reflects just those priorities.

It is a budget that does something else too; it actually balances.

That is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would help unleash economic growth and bring down our country's massive debt load. Interest payments on the national debt alone are set to exceed everything we spend on defense in just a few years' time, so the path we are on clearly is not a sustainable one.

With that in mind, I hope Democrats offer something serious today. I hope they face up to the fact that they already got the revenue they are going to get. So that they can start dealing with the real issues that are leading us to fiscal ruin.

And I hope they will finally stop trying to shield the Washington establishment from every single attempt to inject a little accountability and reform, because if the reports I have seen are correct, the budget they plan to offer would do none of these things. It would only speed up the dangerous trajectory we are on rather than change it; entrench government waste and cronyism rather than root it out; and make things worse for the families we represent rather than give them hope. Hope is something the American people really need right now. They have been battered by the President's economy. They are tired of seeing their money wasted on an endless labyrinth of self- perpetuating bureaucracy.

So I am calling on my Democratic friends to shelve the extremist liberal budget we have been hearing so much about. Let's get serious here and start doing the things necessary to make government more efficient, more pro-growth, more responsive, and more compassionate--in other words, enact the same priorities Republicans have and, frankly, the priorities many of our constituents have too.

After 4 long years, Senate Democrats should be willing to do more than just protect their buddies in government at all costs--to offer Americans something better than a budget that would expand the IRS and crush the middle class.

The American people deserve better than that. Haven't they waited long enough already for true growth-oriented reform?

I yield the floor.

Before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, I just wanted to commend him for his observations. I listened carefully to what the Senator from Florida had to say. It reminds me of the prediction many of us made when it was passed: It would be the single worst piece of legislation in modern times.

Everything the President predicted would happen has not happened. Premiums have gone up; jobs have been destroyed. The single biggest step in the direction of Europeanizing our country that we could possibly have taken we took with ObamaCare.

So I just wanted to commend the Senator from Florida for his comments. They are right on the mark.

I also want to thank Senator Cruz for offering this amendment. I offered it in the last Congress myself. There is no way to fix this thing, no way to fix it. It needs to be pulled out by its roots. The Senator from Florida pointed out it is also destroying jobs.

I was on a tele-townhall the other night. A restaurant manager called in and said exactly what the Senator from Florida just said, that they were moving to lower their employment and to have more part-time workers in order to try to deal with the impending ObamaCare explosion.

So I am sure the Senator from Florida is running into that in his State as well.

Well, the Senator from Florida may have mentioned that earlier in his remarks. But so far there are 20,000 new pages of regulations--so far--a stack this high.

This is absolutely indecipherable by very intelligent people, and they are just getting started.

I want to thank the Senator from Florida for his comments. I think they are right on the mark. This is a huge mistake for our country. Hopefully, someday, maybe even beginning with this amendment, we may begin to undo this massive mistake we made a few years ago.

Madam President, we have been saying for 3 years this bill will be too expensive; it won't do what it promised. Every day we are seeing further proof of that.

The Federal Reserve said it will cost jobs--the Federal Reserve not the RNC. We predicted that. Yesterday we had a glimpse of the application process for ObamaCare. It turns out applying for it will be as difficult as doing your taxes.

Today there is another AP story saying some folks will see their insurance bill double next year as a result of this law. As I indicated, so far there are 20,000 pages of regulations and many more are expected. This bill is an unmitigated disaster for our country, an absolute disaster.

I applaud Senator Cruz for offering this amendment. I strongly support his efforts. Not a single Member of my party in the House and the Senate voted for this bill in the first place. We need to get this bill off the books and straighten out our country. This would be a big step in the direction of achieving that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we know, President Obama missed this year's legal deadline to submit a budget to Congress, just like he has nearly every year of his presidency. But this year it is even worse--we now know he does not even plan to submit a budget until after the House and the Senate have acted to pass one.

That has never happened in the more than 90 years that have gone by since the modern budgeting process was established in the 1920s. Somehow, Presidents managed to submit budgets on time in the middle of World War II, during the Great Depression--but not today? There is simply no excuse.

Rather than helping lead Congress toward a reasonable outcome, it appears the President is happy to drop a bomb on the congressional budget process instead by releasing his budget plan after the House and Senate have acted--presumably so he can campaign against Republicans if the process fails as he hopes. Let's hope he does not trot out that tired political playbook again.

The President should send over his budget now--not next week or next month, but today--so both sides can consider it at a time when it might be helpful, rather than destructive, to the process.

And speaking of serious delays, for 4 years my constituents in Kentucky and Americans across the country have been asking Senate Democrats a simple question: ``Where's the budget?'' Most families put one together. They want to know what Democrats who run the Senate have planned.

But for 4 years, Senate Democrats have ignored these concerns. Year after year, they have neglected one of their most important legislative responsibilities.

Evidently that is about to change. Senate Democrats are now pledging to finally--finally--produce a budget. I will be interested to see what they put forward.

I hope Senate Democrats take this exercise seriously and propose real spending reforms that can put our country on a stronger, more sustainable fiscal path, reforms that can control spending and lead to robust private-sector growth and job creation. We will see.

What about Republicans? Well, Republicans lead the House, and they have proposed budgets every year, right on schedule--budgets that would finally put our country on a path to growth and job creation, and that would put our creaky entitlement programs on a sound fiscal footing so they are around when people need them.

Today, House Republicans will unveil this year's budget blueprint. If the past is any indication, the reforms it contains would jump-start our economy, help more Americans join the middle class, and begin to tackle the debt that threatens all of our futures because Republicans understand we need to grow the economy, not the government. What's more, it would get us back to a balanced budget within just a few short years.

Call me a skeptic, but there is little chance the budget my Senate Democrat friends put forward will balance--either today, 10 years from today, or ever. And I doubt it will contain much in the way of spending reform either. We will probably just get more of what we have come to expect from them the past few years: lots of budget gimmickry, tons of wasteful spending, and even more tax hikes. That type of budget won't grow the economy or shrink the debt.

But here is the thing. The budgeting process is a great way for both parties to outline their priorities for the country, and that is something Senate Democrats have refused to do until now.

So, if they want to put forward a budget that allows Medicare to go bankrupt, that hikes up taxes on the families and small businesses that can least afford them, and that proposes a future of massive deficits without end--if that is really how they want to define themselves for the American people--then let the battle of ideas begin.

But we need to see their budget first, so it is time to end the years of delays and put those ideas on the table. And it is well past time for the President to do the same--not after Congress acts, but before.

Republicans have managed to play by the rules every year and produce serious budgets for our country. I hope Democrats are finally ready to get to work to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, next week marks the third anniversary of ObamaCare, and I will remind you that leading up to its passage in March 2010, Republicans warned endlessly that the bill would cost too much and wouldn't work the way the President and other Washington Democrats said it would. Then-Speaker Pelosi famously said we needed to pass the bill to learn what was in it. Well, nearly 3 years and thousands of pages of regulations later, we have learned a lot about ObamaCare. It looks like our worst fears are coming true.

Right down the hall, President Obama promised if Congress would only pass the kind of health care takeover he was after, it would slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and for our government. Today, the facts tell a very different story.

According to Congress's own nonpartisan budget experts, ObamaCare will increase Federal health spending and subsidies by nearly $600 billion. That is only projected to get worse over time.

Just a few weeks ago, these same nonpartisan experts told us spending is set to ``grow rapidly when provisions of the Affordable Care Act are fully implemented by mid decade.'' Their words, not mine.

So when the President tries to convince Americans that Washington doesn't have a spending problem but a health spending problem, what he is not saying is his own health care law is actually making things worse, not better, and that is to say nothing of the devastating effects of this law for American families.

Then-Senator Obama promised to lower premiums by as much as $2,500 per family when he ran for President. Here are the facts: Three years after ObamaCare's passage, premiums for families have actually risen by nearly that same amount. And that is before the most expensive new rules, taxes, and mandates kick in. After that, the experts tell us premiums could increase by $2,100 per family.

Tragically, ObamaCare will place the greatest burden on young Americans--those just starting to build lives of their own. This is a time in their lives when every dollar counts. Yet 3 years after ObamaCare's passage, experts say premiums for healthy young people could rise by 169 percent.

Part of the reason costs are set to increase so dramatically is because ObamaCare levies so many new taxes and fees. But that is really only half the story. It is also because the law imposes so many onerous regulations. Just look at this stack right here. This is 1 day's worth of ObamaCare regulations--828 pages in 1 day. Overall, there are nearly 20,000 pages, with many more to come. But this is 1 day's worth--828 pages.

This law is a disaster waiting to happen. Imagine the burden we are placing on a single mom who wants to open her own store or the young entrepreneur who wants to sell some new idea or the business owners we all know from back home--the folks who employ so many of our constituents. Instead of encouraging them to create jobs and grow the economy, we are hitting them with a brick of regulations.

Last week the Federal Reserve said what many of us have been predicting all along: ObamaCare is also costing jobs. Recent polling bears this out too. One survey said that more than half of American small business owners are worried that health care costs and taxes will hurt their operating environment ``a lot.'' Another small business survey recently identified these issues as the top two concerns among eight tested.

There are countless real-world examples of how this is hurting the folks we represent. Let me give you just one example. One of my constituents is Junior Bridgeman. He was once known for his skills on the basketball court. Today, Louisvillians know him as the owner of a successful restaurant franchise that employs a lot of Kentuckians. He wrote to me recently to say that ObamaCare is a serious impediment not only to hiring but to hiring low-income employees in particular. Here is what he had to say:

[It] does not consider our ability to afford the mandate.

Under our current labor model . . . [it] will increase labor

costs whether we offer health care or pay the tax penalties.

. . . .This creates, in essence, a disincentive to hire low

income employees.

The President's allies are worried too. We have seen the stories about Democrats who voted for the bill now having second thoughts about specific funding mechanisms for it, but now union leaders are even expressing fears about the law driving up costs for their own health care plans, making unionized workers actually less competitive.

This is the worst time to be imposing tens of thousands of pages of new regulations and onerous taxes on the very families and businesses that can least afford them. We owe our constituents better, particularly those who are struggling the most.

Look, ObamaCare is just too expensive, and it is not working the way Washington Democrats promised. That is why ObamaCare needs to be repealed. That is why I will continue to push for its repeal.

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

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend of mine and a friend to the Commonwealth of Kentucky who has served his State and his community for decades. I was saddened to hear that Doug Whitlock, the president of Eastern Kentucky University since 2007, will retire from that position this summer. In his 6 years at the helm, he has led Eastern Kentucky University to new growth and success, including the establishment of the EKU Center for the Arts, the New Science Building, the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity, the Center for Renewable and Alternative Fuel Technologies, and much more.

Doug is EKU's 11th president. Like his predecessors, his mission has been to uphold the rich tradition of EKU while guiding the school to even greater excellence. Of course, this came naturally to Doug, as EKU is his own alma mater. Doug earned two degrees from EKU as a first- generation graduate--his bachelor's degree in history and social science in 1965, followed by a master's degree in history in 1966. Doug also earned a doctoral degree in higher education from the University of Kentucky in 1981.

Doug's been with EKU since 1968, when he became the school's director of publications. From 1971 to 1976, he served as director of public information; then as executive assistant to the president from 1976 to 1998, and vice president for administrative affairs from 1998 to 2003. From 2003 to 2006, he returned to the classroom, teaching computer science.

Perhaps Doug's greatest strength is that he understands the power of collaboration. He knows how to lead others to see great goals accomplished. Aside from the progress he has brought to EKU, he has served with the Madison County Schools Board of Education, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Commerce Lexington's Central Kentucky Public Policy Council, the Bluegrass Tomorrow Board of Directors, the International Town and Gown Association, the Southern Growth Policies Board, and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Under Doug's tenure, EKU produced its first Truman, Goldwater, and Fulbright Scholars and added several new Ph.D. programs. The 16,000- student school also gained several national distinctions, including recognition by both Forbes and U.S. News & World Report as ranking among America's best colleges; recognition by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a community-engaged university; and recognition by the Chronicle of Higher Education as one of America's ``Great Colleges to Work For.''

Thanks to Doug's leadership, EKU also was honored as a veterans- friendly campus by G.I. Jobs magazine and earned the No. 1 ranking in the Nation for 2 of the last 3 years from Military Times EDGE magazine for being the university that is ``Best for Vets.''

As much as Doug will be missed by EKU's students, staff, and faculty, I am sure his family will appreciate seeing more of him in his retirement--including his wife, Joanne, and his granddaughters. I also understand Doug intends to spend a little more time on his hobbies, photography and electronics.

Whatever endeavors are next for EKU President Doug Whitlock, I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in wishing him all the best and congratulating him for his decades of service to Eastern Kentucky University and to the Commonwealth. He has advanced the cause of higher education in his tenure, and he will be missed by the many who have had the pleasure of working with him, including this Senator.

Madam President, I would like to recognize the South Laurel Middle School Dance Team, a group of young ladies from Laurel County in eastern Kentucky who have recently achieved national success. South Laurel Middle's dance team won a Universal Dance Association national title, marking the first time any dance team from South Laurel has won such an accolade.

Head coach Bettina Rogers recounts that ``they danced with all their hearts'' and gratefully recognized the support of the school and the friends, family, and community that surrounds these exceptional young ladies. The girls embody the Kentucky spirit of hard work and dedication, practicing up to 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, in preparation for their competition. The team, which formed in March, won a plethora of other titles this year, and it is clear that their hours of practice have paid off.

At this time, I would like to applaud and recognize the South Laurel Middle School Dance Team for their national title win and all their recent accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that an article extolling the team's achievements from a Laurel County-area newspaper, the Sentinel Echo, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday the junior the Senator from Kentucky took to the Senate floor to exercise his rights as an individual Senator in pursuit of an answer from the Attorney General concerning the rights of U.S. citizens.

The filibuster was extended, heartfelt, and important, and I wish to say a few words in reaction to that effort and, as well, on the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The question he raised was entirely appropriate and should have already been answered by the Obama administration.

First, I wish to state for the Record and to correct any misimpression that yesterday's long debate was a criticism of the Senate's oversight of our Nation's intelligence activities. In fact, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is responsible for conducting vigorous oversight of our Nation's intelligence activities, and I want to make clear that they were not the subject of last night's debate. The members of that committee conduct that oversight in a professional, responsible manner, and selflessly serve the rest of the Senate in that capacity.

Let me assure the Senate, the activities of the intelligence community are closely monitored and overseen by the Intelligence Committee, to include all counterterrorism activities.

Most recently, the committee has conducted a serious and much-needed inquiry into the terrorist attack on the temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, and has conducted a thorough review of John Brennan's nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Chambliss, the committee has made significant progress in reviewing Mr. Brennan's record, the intelligence related to the terrorist threat in Libya, and in reviewing the administration's legal opinions concerning some overseas activities.

Second, in reviewing Mr. Brennan's nomination, Senator Paul has asked a series of questions of the executive branch. Senator Paul has a right to ask questions of the administration, and the administration has a responsibility to answer in keeping with the rules established for oversight of intelligence activities and for protecting sensitive information.

The specific question, however, is not an intelligence-related question but a straightforward legal question: Does the President have the authority to order the use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen who is not a combatant on U.S. soil without due process of law?

To his credit, John Brennan directly answered the question motivating Senator Paul's filibuster: The Central Intelligence Agency does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States, nor does it have the authority to do so. What is befuddling is why the Attorney General has not directly and clearly answered the question.

The U.S. military no more has the right to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is not a combatant with an armed unmanned aerial vehicle than it does with an M-16. The technology is beside the point. It simply doesn't have that right, and the administration should simply answer the question. There is no reason we cannot get this question answered today. And we should get the question answered today. Frankly, it should have been answered a long time ago.

Last, during Senator Paul's filibuster, I noted that I cannot support John Brennan's confirmation. During January of 2009, the President issued a series of Executive orders which, in my judgment, weakened the ability of our intelligence community to find, capture, detain, and interrogate terrorists. As President Obama's senior adviser on counterterrorism, Mr. Brennan has been a fierce defender of the administration's approach to counterterrorism as articulated by the Executive orders I just referred to. He has been a loyal, dogged defender of the administration's policies, policies with which I seriously disagree. My greatest concern is that the Director of Central Intelligence must be entirely independent of partisan politics in developing objective analysis and advice that he gives to the President. After 4 years of working within the White House, confronting difficult policy matters on a daily basis, and having attempted to defend the administration's policies--sometimes publicly, sometimes to the media, and occasionally to the Senate--I question whether Mr. Brennan can detach himself from those experiences.

For that reason I will oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I will again oppose invoking cloture on the nomination, and I will explain why.

In short, Ms. Halligan's record of advocacy and her activist view of the judiciary lead me to conclude she would bring that activism right to the court. As I have said many times before, the role of a judge in our system is to determine what the law says, not what they or anybody else wants it to be. That is not Ms. Halligan's view of the courts. She views them as a means to ``enable enviable social progress and mobility''--to ``enable enviable social progress and mobility'' with the judges, not the American people, using their office to determine what ``progress'' is ``enviable.'' That is the view of Ms. Halligan.

When she was in a position of authority, she put that activist view into practice time and time again. On the subject of second amendment rights, Ms. Halligan, as solicitor general of New York, advanced the dubious legal theory that those who make firearms should be liable for the criminal acts of third parties who misuse them.

Imposing potentially massive tort liability against the makers of a lawful product because of the criminal acts of someone else did not seem much like ``enviable social progress'' to Randall Casseday, who is with Kahr Arms, which sells firearms to the New York City Police Department. Here is what he said:

I can't see how Kahr Arms can be responsible for misuse of

its product. I don't see how you can do that. One lawsuit

would put us out of business.

Fortunately, the State court in New York followed the law and rejected Ms. Halligan's entreaty that it make up new law in order to achieve the so-called social progress she envisioned. The court observed that it had never recognized the novel claim pursued by Ms. Halligan, nor had other courts, for that matter. Moreover, the State court called what she wanted it to do to manufacturers of a legal product ``legally inappropriate'' and said the power she wanted the courts to assert was the responsibility of ``the Legislative and the Executive branches.''

So out of bounds were the types of frivolous lawsuits pursued by Ms. Halligan that Congress did something rare: It actually passed tort reform to stop them, and it passed by a wide bipartisan majority. In her zeal for these frivolous lawsuits, Ms. Halligan then chose to criticize the Congress for having the temerity to exercise its policymaking responsibility to protect a lawful industry. However, she didn't just criticize the Congress for trying to stop the frivolous lawsuits she was pursuing, she chose to exaggerate the scope of the bill by claiming that it would stop State legislatures by ``cutting off at the pass any attempt to find solutions that might reduce gun crime.'' This assertion was false. It strains credulity that nearly half the Senate Democratic Conference who supported the legislation would vote not only for tort reform but would vote for Federal legislation that would block States from passing anything at all related to gun crime. Her mischaracterization of the legislation underscores her zeal for the frivolous lawsuits she was pursuing.

True to the adage ``frequently wrong but never in doubt,'' Ms. Halligan was undeterred. Having had both her State court and the Congress repudiate her novel legal theories, Ms. Halligan then filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in another frivolous case against firearms manufacturers. This time she claimed the new law Congress passed was unconstitutional. Not surprisingly, she lost that case too.

Ms. Halligan's stubborn pursuit of frivolous claims against gun manufacturers is a textbook example of judicial activism--using the courts to achieve a political agenda no matter what the law says.

Her pursuit of losing legal theories in the service of her own personal views

doesn't stop there. On enemy combatants, Ms. Halligan signed a report as a bar association member that asserted that the authorization for use of military force did not authorize long-term detention of enemy combatants. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President did, in fact, have this authority. Yet despite this precedent, Ms. Halligan chose to file an amicus brief years later arguing that the President did not possess this legal authority that the Supreme Court had already upheld.

On immigration, Ms. Halligan filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the National Labor Relations Board should have the legal authority to grant back pay to illegal aliens. However, Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from working in the United States in the first place. Fortunately, the Court sided with the law and disagreed with Ms. Halligan on that novel legal theory as well.

The point here is that even in cases where the law is clear or the courts have already spoken--including the Supreme Court--Ms. Halligan chose to get involved anyway by using arguments that had already been rejected either by the courts, the legislature, or, in the case of frivolous claims against the gun manufacturers, by both.

In other words, Ms. Halligan has time and again sought to push her views over and above those of the courts or those of the people as reflected in the law. Ms. Halligan's record strongly suggests she would not view a seat on the U.S. appeals court as an opportunity to adjudicate, evenhandedly, disputes between parties based on the law but instead as an opportunity to put her thumb on the scale in favor of whatever individual or group or cause she happened to believe in.

I have nothing against this nominee personally. I just believe, as I think most other Americans do, that we should be putting people on the bench who are committed to an evenhanded interpretation of the law so that everyone who walks into the courtroom knows he or she will have a fair shake. In my view, Ms. Halligan is not such a nominee.

I will be voting against cloture on this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Our decision to do so is not unprecedented--far from it. Many of our Democratic colleagues who are expressing shock and utter amazement that we denied cloture on Ms. Halligan's nomination for a second time felt no compunction about denying cloture on Miguel Estrada's nomination to the very same court. They denied nomination for him seven times, in fact, even though--unlike Ms. Halligan's record--Mr. Estrada's background did not evidence a penchant for judicial activism.

We have begun this Congress by making progress on filling judicial vacancies. I am happy to resume working with the majority on doing so, but because of her record of activism, giving Ms. Halligan a lifetime appointment to the DC Circuit is a bridge too far.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague from Kentucky. First let me say I think our mutual constituents will certainly learn----

Would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

First let me thank my friend from Kentucky for his courage and conviction. Having been here a while in the Senate, we have only rarely, as Senator Thune pointed out, had extended debate on any matter. A body that came into existence for the purpose of lengthy discussions of weighty issues has, in recent years, had very little lengthy discussion of weighty issues.

If I understand the issue the Senator from Kentucky feels so passionately about, it is that the administration should answer a question that is pretty easily stated, as I understand it, as follows: Does the administration take the view that a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil would be an appropriate use of that weapon? Am I correct that is the question the Senator from Kentucky hopes to get an answer to from the administration?

And I assume the Senator from Kentucky shares my view that it is a pretty easily understood question. It strikes me that the question again is pretty easily understood and has to be something the administration has given some thought to, given the development of this new weapon.

I heard Senator Barrasso earlier today talking about how this technology has changed--we would never have thought of this a few years ago--this technology has actually changed warfare in a very dramatic way. So as I understand it, what the Senator from Kentucky is looking for is how this dramatic new weapon applies to the U.S. Constitution-- how the use of it applies to the U.S. Constitution on American soil.

So I think it is entirely appropriate that the Senator from Kentucky engage in an extended debate with the support of his colleagues to get the answer to this question. I wanted to congratulate him for his tenacity, for his conviction, and for being able to rally the support of a great many people, as well as people who have come over from the House of Representatives who feel also, I gather, that this is a legitimate question the administration ought to be answering.

I might say, at whatever point we get to a cloture vote to extend debate on the nomination of Brennan, it is my view cloture should not be invoked. This is a controversial nominee. Should cloture be invoked, I intend to oppose the nomination.

I congratulate my colleague from Kentucky for this extraordinary effort.

I thank my friend from Kentucky.

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

Mr. President, back in November the American people sent a divided government to Washington. I know this is not the outcome that President Obama had hoped for. I know he wanted complete control of Washington, just like he had the first 2 years of his Presidency.

Still, it was surprising to me--and I think to a lot of other people around here--to learn over the weekend that among the first calls the President made after his acceptance speech on election day had to do with ginning up another campaign.

The President wasn't focused on solving the problems that middle- class families face today but how to get a Democratic Speaker of the House 2 years down the road. That was the message he sent to top House Democrats.

Since then, the President, along with his Washington Democratic allies, has expended enormous amounts of energy to advance that goal-- rebooting his political organization, provoking manufactured crises with Congress, engineering show votes in the Senate, and traveling around the country to campaign relentlessly against his opponents.

That is why the sequester went into effect in its current form. That is why Washington continues to careen needlessly from crisis to crisis.

And that is why we find ourselves in a situation where more than 1,400 days have passed since Senate Democrats last passed a budget. What a sad state of affairs for our country, and for the notion of governance in general.

Every year House Republicans have passed budgets that seriously address the transcendent challenge of our time: putting runaway Washington spending and debt on a sustainable path so we can create jobs and grow the economy.

Meanwhile, Democrats have followed the President's lead, focusing on the next campaign to the exclusion of all else.

But it is not just Senate Democrats who have been missing in action. The President has been late submitting his own budget outline nearly every single year.

He has already missed this year's deadline by more than a month.

Just last week we learned the President will submit his budget after the House and the Senate have passed their own budgets and have gone home for Passover and Easter. That goes far beyond the pale of just missing deadlines.

Look, the American people are tired of the delays and the excuses. It is time

for the President to get his budget plan over to us. Not next week or next month, but now. And this time, it should be serious--it should root out waste and inefficiency instead of kicking the can further down the road.

The budget blueprint he sent us last year was so roundly ridiculed for its fiscal gimmickry and its massive tax hikes that, when it came to a vote in the Senate, his own party joined Republicans in voting it down 99 to 0.

In the House, it was rejected unanimously. Even the President's most liberal allies couldn't defend it.

So we are counting on the President to get serious this time. And we are counting on Senate Democrats to stop relying on Republicans to bail them out of their irresponsibility and habitual legislative tardiness.

But the broader point is this: President Obama and his Senate Democratic allies will have plenty of time to campaign next year. The American people are exhausted after all these years of campaigning, and they expect Democratic leaders now to finally work with the divided Congress they elected to get things done. As I have said before, the President has to figure out how to govern with the situation he has, not the one he wishes he had. That is what being President is all about.

It is time to return to actually solving problems--in other words, to legislate the way we are supposed to around here: with transparency, with public input, and with sufficient time to develop sound policy. That is especially true when it comes to dealing with the most controversial issues in Washington. Whether it is the budget or tax reform or health care, we end up with better outcomes when we legislate in the light of day and not in some back room.

For instance, the Senate majority should be allowing us to mark up bills so that Members with expertise in a certain issue area can contribute to the legislative process in the most constructive and transparent way possible.

When bills do reach the floor, the Senate majority should allow Members of both parties the chance to represent the voices of their constituents by offering amendments in an open process.

And when the House sends us bills, the Senate majority should actually take some of them up every once in a while.

The leadership won't agree with everything the House passes; but that is okay. If the Senate passes a different version of a bill, we can work out our differences through the legislative process.

That is how Congress is supposed to function, even though it's not at all how the Senate has functioned recently.

I know Washington Democrats' most important priority right now is getting Nancy Pelosi her old job back in 2014. But that is not what Americans want--and that is why Washington has become so dysfunctional.

The American people, including my constituents in Kentucky, expect them to get off the hustings and work with Members of both parties to address the most serious challenges facing our country. The public is tired of the manufactured crises, the poll-tested gimmicks, and the endless campaigning. They expect and deserve better than that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a Kentuckian who has both faithfully served his community and the men and women of the U.S. Army for more than two decades. I speak of Mr. William J. Rissel, the president and chief executive officer of the Fort Knox Federal Credit Union, a stalwart member of the Fort Knox CORE Committee, and a long-time friend.

Under Bill's leadership, the Fort Knox Federal Credit Union has achieved impressive growth and has done much to help the local community. Bill has worked in the financial services industry for more than 30 years, and he has headed the Fort Knox Federal Credit Union since 1991. In that time, it has expanded from 4 branches primarily serving Hardin County to 14 branches across central Kentucky. Fort Knox Federal Credit Union was recently awarded the Department of the Army's Distinguished Service Award. It won this recognition in competition against all other on-post credit unions in the Nation.

If there is a cause that is near and dear to Bill's heart in addition to Fort Knox Federal, it is that of Fort Knox and the surrounding community. In 2011, under Bill's guidance, Fort Knox Federal sponsored a platoon deployed to Afghanistan. The staff shared messages of support and care packages with the soldiers to remind them of home and let them know that they remained in the thoughts and prayers of the local community. Bill and I have worked together for years trying to ensure that Fort Knox has what it needs to support its mission and the military personnel and their families who call the post home. Bill has been a member of the Fort Knox CORE Committee since 1993 and has served as president of the organization since January 2006.

Bill is also active in the local area, having served as a Radcliff Chamber of Commerce board member; president of the Association of the United States Army, Fort Knox chapter; the United Way Advisory Committee; the Radcliff Industrial Foundation Board; and Rotary International. He also visits Fort Knox Elementary School and reads to Mrs. Trimble's class every year.

Bill and his wife Rosie are completing their dream house in Florida where they may both enjoy the warm weather, but I know his heart will always remain in central Kentucky.

Mr. President, I ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. William J. Rissel for his successful career and thank him for his service to the community and to Fort Knox.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a group of young ladies who have found great success in their athletic endeavors on the national and international level. The North Laurel High School cheerleaders have represented their county and the Commonwealth of Kentucky well with their hard work, skill, and success. On February 10, the North Laurel High School cheerleaders won both the World School and International Cup at UCA Nationals in Orlando, FL.

The cheerleading squad from North Laurel High School not only reclaimed the title of first place in World School at the UCA, Universal Cheerleaders Association, Nationals in Orlando, but they went on to become champions of the International Cup, beating out teams from Canada, Ecuador, and China. They also went on to win first place in the medium 2A Division representing the 13th Region at the 2013 KHSAA, Kentucky High School Athletic Association, Competitive Cheer State Championship held in Bowling Green, KY on February 23. Team members Autumn Asher, Madison Asher, Machenzie Burns, Raye Lynn Campbell, Taylor Crockett, Channing Ely, Emily Evans, Katlyn Helton, Malari Hoskins, Sara Kaminsky, Peyton Lankford, Katie Mays, Tara McClure, Aubree Oakley, Katelyn Sharp, MaKayla Vaughn, Mary Kate Whitfield, and Maddie Wood as well as

coaches Kimberly B. Wood, Toni Blake Greer, and Jomo K. Thompson saw their dedication and hours of practice pay off with victory. Truly, their efforts reflect well on their community, and they represent to competitors all over the world the unbridled spirit of Kentuckians.

At this time, I would like to publicly declare Kentucky's appreciation for this team, their coaches, and their parents who have received well-deserved recognition and success for their commitments and practice. The North Laurel High School cheerleaders have represented Kentucky well, and we are both grateful and proud. I would ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in acknowledging their achievements, and I ask unanimous consent that an article detailing their success from the Laurel County-area publication the Sentinel Echo be printed in the Record.