Floor Statements

Madam President, later this morning, we will have some important votes related to national security. Passage of the defense portion of the supplemental will fund the surge forces in Afghanistan and our ongoing military efforts in Iraq.

Thanks to the McChrystal strategy, American forces have already brought a lot of pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need to keep that pressure up if this counterinsurgency strategy is to succeed, and it must.

This is why I encourage all Members to vote against the Feingold amendment, which calls for a plan of withdrawal of the forces from Afghanistan. When it comes to funding our operations in Iraq, we must be committed to providing the assistance and forces necessary to provide security as the Iraqis work to form a new government.

We will also have votes related to the security of our borders. This is clearly a very pressing issue. We should respond with the urgency that the situation demands and the unity that Americans expect on matters of national security.

In these days of economic uncertainty, Americans are watching the Senate very closely. The $13 trillion national debt has concentrated a lot of minds on what we are doing here. Some have tried to defend the extenders bill and the nearly $100 billion it would add to the debt. I think most Americans would say the real emergency here is the $13 trillion debt. Even some Democrats seem to agree with me. That is why we are seeing a quiet revolt over in the House on this bill. We must do something about our debt.

On the oilspill, there appears to be some good news this morning. We hope what we are hearing proves to be true. Americans are eager to hear what the President has to say this afternoon. More important, they are eager to see what the administration plans to do. But for now, we are all hoping that the efforts to stop this leak are sustained.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on this upcoming final day in May we will observe Memorial Day, and remember the men and women in uniform who have loved this country and given their lives to defend it. Memorial Day is a time to honor their extraordinary sacrifice.

We have a proud tradition of service in my home State of Kentucky, home to Fort Knox, Fort Campbell and many of our brave troops. Just a few days ago soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division, based out of Fort Campbell, cased their colors in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan. Training the local police force will be a major focus for this mission, the fourth deployment for the division headquarters since 9/11.

More than 10,000 men and women from the 101st are already deployed to Afghanistan, and by the end of August that number will reach 20,000.

In addition, about 3,500 soldiers from the Army's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Knox, are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan soon, as are up to about 2,000 Kentucky Army and Air National Guard members.

Five soldiers from the 101st have died in Afghanistan since January. Every soldier preparing to ship out faces that same risk, but that does not deter them from duty and service. They are working to keep their families back home and all Americans safe.

I have met with many of the family members of soldiers, sailors and marines from Kentucky who gave their lives in service. I have let them know that their loved ones will not be forgotten by this country. And they are not forgotten in the U.S. Senate. We are honored to share this land with such brave heroes.

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

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I would say to my good friend from Iowa, the majority leader and I have been working on a package of nominations. Unfortunately, we are snagged over one particular nomination which has already been defeated by the Senate, and that was the nomination of Craig Becker to be on the NLRB. The President then recessed Mr. Becker and recessed a Democratic nomination to the NLRB but not a Republican nominee to the

NLRB. There is a fundamental lack of equity and fairness involved, and that has been a significant hindrance in coming to a consent agreement.

Obviously, before we leave we will clear the military nominations. Those are really not in dispute. But typically what happens here before a recess, the majority leader and I get together and we try to work out as many of these as we can. To just clear the whole calendar involves, in addition, clearing judges who just got out of committee this week. We have a way that we sequence those who have been acceptable to both sides.

In short, I have not seen every single name on the list of the Senator from Iowa, but it is simply not the way we are going to go forward, certainly not this evening.

Accordingly, I would now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following list of nominations that I will send to the desk. This is a list of approximately 60 nominations from the Executive Calendar.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I will say just a word this morning about the still unfinished extenders package that is about to come over from the House.

The first thing to say is that Republicans are ready and willing right now to extend necessary benefits and to pay for them. We could get this done in literally no time. So any delay in passing this bill is coming from the other side of the aisle. I say this not to point fingers but because we have seen this Democratic playbook.

We know they will try to blame Republicans for their own inability to come to an agreement if we don't go along with their effort to add another $130 billion to the deficit by the end of the week. Let me say that again. We know they will try to blame Republicans for their own inability to come to an agreement if we don't go along with their effort to add another $130 billion to the deficit by the end of this week.

So let's be perfectly clear: There is one reason Democrats are having trouble getting an agreement on this bill, and one reason only. That is because it is so blatantly reckless.

Europe is in the midst of what German Chancellor Angela Merkel describes as an existential crisis, all brought about by governments that spend money they don't have. Americans are watching this crisis play out, and they see Democrats doing the same thing here day after day after day. This extenders package is just the latest example, the latest evidence of a majority that simply is out of control.

As early as today, we will reach a dubious milestone in America: a $13 trillion national debt--the first time in history we have crossed this frightening threshold.

This extenders bill would add another $130 billion on top of that-- more debt in one vote than the administration claimed their health care bill would save over 10 years. The majority would have us add $130 billion to the $13 trillion debt in 1 week that would eat up all the alleged savings from the health care bill over 10 years. This is fiscal recklessness, and that is why even some Democrats are starting to revolt.

The time is long since past to reverse this dangerous trend, the way Europe has been forced to reverse the trend. But far from doing anything about our own looming debt crisis, Democrats only seem interested in making it worse.

The true emergency here--if we are looking for one--is our national debt. That is the emergency. A line must be drawn somewhere. Americans are simply running out of patience.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I remind our Republican colleagues that the President will be meeting with us at noon. We look forward to seeing him. He is, of course, always welcome here. I am sure we will have a lively discussion.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about the administration's health care plan. Along with most Americans, the entire Republican conference opposed this legislation. We listened to the public and argued strenuously against its passage at every opportunity.

We also offered detailed reasons for our opposition, along with commonsense alternative reforms aimed at lowering the cost of health care without undermining the system we already have.

Since its passage, our arguments against the bill have been repeatedly vindicated, even as the administration's many promises about the bill have been called into question again and again. So Democrats may have passed this bill, but the debate is far from over. It is important that Americans know the ways in which the promises they heard aren't adding up.

The supporters of the bill said it would lower costs for families, taxpayers and small businesses and that the President would not support any plan that ``adds one dime to the deficit.''

As it turned out, Medicare's own experts say the bill will actually increase costs by more than $300 billion.

The pricetag Democrats used to sell the bill is dramatically lower than the revised estimates that are now coming in. Sometime in the next several days, Democrats in Congress plan to add tens of billions of dollars more in health care spending on top of that, which, if they had been honest about it, would have been included in the original bill.

Needless to say, all this extra spending is money we don't have, and it goes straight to the deficit.

Take all this together, and it is no wonder that an overwhelming majority of Americans continue to oppose this new law.

Tomorrow, Senator Barrasso will be on the floor offering what he calls a second opinion on the bill. This is an important effort that I think deserves and will continue to receive considerable attention. Dr. Barrasso is holding the supporters of the bill accountable for the assurances they gave the American people, who deserve to know the real effects and the real impact of this bill.

Related to all this, of course, are the methods the administration and its allies in Congress used to pass the bill. The cornhusker kickback may be a household phrase, but it is just one of the questionable methods that were used to force it through against the will of the public.

Another method was the stifling of critics, as was done by the Department of Health and Human Services.

I have spoken out repeatedly on the gag order HHS issued against private companies for doing nothing more than informing seniors about provisions of the bill that could affect their benefits.

Well, now you can add another layer of outrage to that unfortunate chapter in this debate because, just yesterday, I came across a recent flyer from the Department of Health and Human Services, which I am holding up, that does the very thing the administration didn't want private companies to do. They sent out a gag order against private companies saying you cannot express yourself about how this law would affect your beneficiaries. Now the government, at taxpayer's expense, is sending out--with our tax money--exactly the same thing to seniors that they would not let a private company do.

This flyer purports to inform seniors about what the health care bill would mean for them. Much of it directly contradicts what the administration's own experts have said about the law. This flyer-- printed at taxpayers' expense and distributed to seniors--contradicts what the administration's own experts are saying about the health care bill. All this, as I said earlier, is bought and paid for by the American taxpayer.

This is a complete outrage. It is an absolute outrage. It is precisely the kind of thing that Americans are so angry about at the moment.

Here is the Federal Government telling a private business it can't communicate with its clients about important legislation and then doing the very same thing itself, paid for with our tax money.

The administration's own Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says seniors who use Medicare Advantage will lose benefits as a result of this bill. Yet the flyer they are putting out says absolutely nothing about that. Instead, it implies that nothing will change for seniors.

But perhaps most egregious is the claim that a bill which cuts Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion will actually ``preserve and strengthen'' Medicare. What nonsense.

This is nothing short of government propaganda, paid for by the taxpayer. I am sure Dr. Barrasso will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead.

I commend to my colleagues a brochure that was put out by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the message therein by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius--``Medicare and the New Health Care Law--What it Means for You.''

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate began consideration of the supplemental spending bill to fund the surge of forces into Afghanistan and our ongoing efforts in Iraq.

President Karzai was recently here to talk about the situation in Afghanistan, and during that same week General McChrystal briefed the Armed Services Committee on the conduct of the overall campaign.

One message that came through from both visits is that the surge in Afghanistan is not yet complete and the counterinsurgency strategy General McChrystal has developed is still in its early stages. So it is impossible to overstate the importance of supporting our troops in the field.

In the coming year, the resolve of NATO forces in Afghanistan will be tested by the Taliban fighters. The Taliban leadership in Pakistan will be watching with interest to see if this Congress and our country stand firmly behind the counterinsurgency strategy and so will our Pakistani partners, elected governments in European capitals, and average citizens in Afghanistan.

Low-level Taliban fighters in Afghanistan will ultimately have to decide whether to side with a government that has yet to earn their trust or Taliban leaders. They will be watching our efforts as they weigh whether to side with the Taliban leaders or their current government in this fight. This is why we must keep up the pressure.

The stakes are as high as ever. We have seen that in recent weeks as the Pakistani Taliban has attempted to strike us here at home and as the Afghan Taliban has launched high visibility strikes at military installations in Kandahar and at Bagram. Afghan leaders who attend the coming peace talks will be waiting to see if the United States can be trusted to stay long enough to fulfill our promises of helping the security forces of Afghanistan become operationally effective.

American forces have brought great pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan. That must continue if General McChrystal's strategy is to succeed. We must work together to help him ensure that the Taliban do not return to power in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for terrorists.

In short, we must pass this bill with bipartisan support and resist the urge to slow it down or to use it as a mere vehicle for deficit spending on pet domestic projects that will only bog us down in a partisan fight.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, ever since they passed their new health

care bill, Democrats promised to help small businesses offset some of the costs of the new taxes and mandates it will impose.

Yet, according to an AP story this morning, that is looking like yet another empty promise.

According to the story, a furniture supply store owner in Springfield, IL, Zach Hoffman, was confident he qualified for the new small business tax credit. Yet buried in the new law's fine print was language disqualifying his 24 employees from this needed help.

According to the law, Mr. Hoffman created too many jobs to get help, and he paid them too much, even though his average employees only made $35,000 a year.

Mr. Hoffman called this a bait and switch and noted that in order to get the most out of the new credit, he would have to cut his workforce to 10 employees and slash their wages.

``That seems like a strange outcome,'' he said, ``given we've got 10 percent unemployment.''

Speaker Pelosi told Americans we had to pass the health care bill so we could know what was in it. Now that Americans are learning what was buried in the fine print, they are rightly upset.

They see that small businesses are denied the help they were promised, while facing new job-killing taxes and government mandates. They have learned that health care costs will go up, not down, as the administration and Democrats in Congress promised.

Americans want this bill repealed and replaced with something that will work for people such as Zach Hoffman and all the Nation's job creators and small businesses.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as I stand here this morning, the U.S. Government is in dire fiscal condition, with the Federal debt now about to break $13 trillion for the first time in history, a level that was unthinkable a few years ago. Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington seem to think there is some law out there that will somehow prevent us from experiencing the same kind of crisis that is currently engulfing Europe.

The fact is, Washington can't even pay its bills. Yet over the last 16 months it has taken over banks, insurance companies, car companies, the student loan business, and health care. Now it has its sights set on anyone in America who engages in a financial transaction. The arrogance of this approach to governing is truly astounding.

Everyone recognizes the need to rein in Wall Street to prevent another crisis, but the bill the majority wants to end debate on today does not do that. Instead, it uses this crisis as yet another opportunity to expand the cost and size and reach of government. It punishes Main Street for the sins of Wall Street. Worst of all, it ignores the root of the crisis by doing nothing whatsoever to reform the GSEs.

But all this should sound very familiar to anyone who followed the health care debate. Remember that the problem with health care was that it cost too much and the administration's solution was to spend even more money on it. This time, the Fed, the SEC, and Treasury all missed the housing bubble and the irresponsible risk-taking that led to the financial crisis, and the administration's solution to this is to hire more of these people to give them even more authority than they had before. So we have been down this road before.

The administration used the cost crisis in health care as an excuse to force a government takeover on a public that didn't want it. Now it is using the financial crisis as a way to intrude into the lives of people and businesses that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the problem, and to hire thousands of government employees and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to pay for it all. At the outset of this debate, Republicans argued that getting on to the bill would be a mistake since Democrats had no intention of improving it. As it turns out, we were right. Not only does the bill still contain a massive new government agency with broad new powers over consumer spending and Main Street businesses, it does nothing--nothing--as I indicated, to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main protagonists in the financial meltdown. This is absolutely worse than irresponsible. It is the legislative equivalent of wrongful conviction.

What is more, Democrats even opposed putting these two government- sponsored companies that were behind the housing crisis on the Federal budget and accounting for the billions they got from taxpayers in bailout funds.

Republicans tried to address the concerns we have been hearing from Main Street, many of them targeted at this new Federal agency that would regulate all aspects--all aspects--of a consumer's life, but Democrats rejected them. We offered an amendment that would sunset this agency if it led to unwanted government intrusion. They rejected it. We offered an amendment that said banks that fail should go bankrupt rather than giving their Wall Street creditors a bailout. They rejected it. We offered an amendment that would have strengthened lending standards. They rejected it. We offered three amendments to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They rejected them.

They can call this bill whatever they want, but there is no way--no way--it can be viewed as a serious effort to rein in Wall Street or to address the problems that caused the crisis. How do you explain to the average American--the average American--that a bill that was meant to rein in Wall Street can be supported--supported--by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup but opposed by car dealers, dentists, florists, furniture salesmen, plumbers, credit unions, and community banks?

Let me say that one more time. How do you explain to the people of this country a bill designed to rein in Wall Street that is supported by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup but opposed by car dealers, dentists, florists, furniture salesmen, plumbers, credit unions, and community banks? How do you explain how a bill that was supposed to target Wall Street now threatens to subject manufacturers to a broad new financial regulation and new layers of government bureaucracy? How do you justify new costs and regulations on small businesses struggling to dig themselves out of a recession, while the biggest banks--the ones that caused it--don't seem to mind it? How do you explain how a bill that was supposed to end bailouts will be used to collect financial data on Americans?

Look, the only thing we need to know about this bill is that a bill that was meant to rein in Wall Street is now being endorsed--now being endorsed--by Goldman Sachs and is opposed by America's small business owners, community banks, credit unions, and auto dealers. A bill that was supposed to rein in Wall Street is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce but supported by Citigroup.

Small businesses don't like it, but the biggest beneficiaries of the bailouts support it, because regulations never hurt them as much as they hurt the little guys. Our friends on the other side are happy as long as they pass something called reform, and the administration is happy because it is bent--absolutely bent--on expanding government at any cost.

But the American people are watching, and they are not happy. They are astonished at the arrogance of elected leaders who seem to do more to create problems up here than to solve them: Health care costs too much, so let's spend more on it. Regulators missed the housing crisis and the financial panic; hire more of them.

The Federal Government has doubled in size over the past decade, and yet every day this administration devises some new way to make it bigger, costlier, and more intrusive. In my view, the administration has lost all perspective about the limits of government and, frankly, it is losing the confidence and the trust of the American people.

Americans look at what is happening in Europe. They feel as though they are seeing the same movie playing out right here. They feel as though the one way to avoid this crisis from spreading across the Atlantic is to stop the spending and the government expansion that led to it; and they feel as though the administration doesn't see any of this and is so bent on its government-knows-best solution to everything that it can't even see when the government itself is the problem.

The goal of legislating is not to say we have solved the problem when we haven't. It is to prevent or alleviate real hardships and expand opportunities for the people who sent us here.

But until the administration actually delivers on that promise, Americans cannot and should not be expected to endorse its plans for even more government because, for most Americans, what all these crises reveal is not a need for more government but a need for less government. I will vote against this so-called reform bill, and I urge my colleagues 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, the American people are concerned with the direction the administration is trying to take this country. They are concerned about the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and the student loan business. And they are concerned about the way all this is being done as exemplified by the health care debate in which the administration and its allies in Congress defied the clear will of the people by jamming this partisan bill through Congress and stifling its critics along the way.

On this last point, I am referring, of course, to the gag order the administration imposed on insurance companies that wrote letters to seniors telling them how the health care bill could affect their benefits under Medicare Advantage. In issuing this gag order, the administration relied on the flimsiest of legal arguments. It said that regulations which allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict how companies marketed their products could be used to impose a prior restraint on speech about an issue of public concern-- namely, the pending health care bill. But the communications in question were not commercial speech; they were issue advocacy, which is the very type of speech the first amendment is intended to protect. That is why even the Clinton administration rejected the notion that its Department of Health and Human Services could restrict this kind of speech.

Nor was this the only time the Obama administration has attempted to use the government to stifle speech. Just 1 month prior to its issuance of this gag order, I had the opportunity to sit in the Supreme Court when the Solicitor General delivered her first oral argument in any courtroom. This was the Citizens United case, the same case that prompted the President to scold the Court during his State of the Union Address in January and a case that, if it had gone the other way, could have dealt a serious blow to the first amendment right of free speech.

For those who aren't familiar with the particulars of this case, Citizens United turned on the question of whether the Federal Government could ban a nonprofit corporation from producing a movie critical of former Senator Hillary Clinton and attempting to air it just prior to the 2008 Democratic primary.

Most people would probably be surprised to learn that in America, the Federal Government could ban a group from speaking because of who the group was and because of the type of speech being uttered, but that is precisely what Federal campaign finance law prohibited. So because this law constrained the exercise of its first amendment rights, this nonprofit, Citizens United, sued the government. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and because the Federal Government was the defendant, the Solicitor General's Office--Ms. Kagan's office-- handled the case, arguing in favor of prohibiting the advertising and airing of the film.

There were two oral arguments in this case, and during both of them, Solicitor General Kagan's office and Ms. Kagan herself argued that the Federal

Government had the power to regulate--and, if need be, to ban--large amounts of political speech. Indeed, the amount of power Ms. Kagan and her office argued the Federal Government had in this area was so broad--so broad--that both liberal and conservative Justices found their arguments jarring, given the reverence Americans of all ideological stripes have for the first amendment. But that was, in fact, their argument.

During the first argument, the Court asked Ms. Kagan's deputy whether the government had the power to ban books if they were published by a corporation, and if the books urged the reader to support or defeat a candidate for office. Incredibly, he said, yes, the government could ban a corporation from publishing a book--even if it only mentioned the candidate once in 500 pages.

Not surprisingly, this contention prompted quite a bit of discussion among the Justices. They wanted to be clear that that is actually what Ms. Kagan's office was proposing. So, to remove any doubt about their position, Ms. Kagan's deputy said he wanted to make it, in his words, ``absolutely clear'' that the government did, in fact, have the power to ban certain speakers from publishing books that criticized candidates. Justice Souter asked if that meant labor unions, too. Ms. Kagan's deputy said that indeed it did.

Well, so troubled was the Court by the contention of the Solicitor General's office that the government had a constitutionally defensible ability to ban certain books by certain speakers, that it ordered another argument in the case. This time, Ms. Kagan herself appeared on behalf of the government. And this time, it was Justice Ginsburg who noted that at the first argument, Ms. Kagan's office argued that the Federal Government could, in fact, ban books, such as ``campaign biographies,'' despite the protections of the first amendment.

Justice Ginsburg asked whether that was still the government's position. Ms. Kagan responded that after seeing the reaction of the Supreme Court to her office's argument, they had rethought their position. Ms. Kagan maintained that while the Federal law in question did apply to materials like ``full-length books,'' someone probably would have a good first amendment challenge to it.

So far so good.

But her fall-back position was that the same law gives the government the power to ban pamphlets, regardless of the first amendment's protection for free speech. This caused the Justices to bristle again. One Justice asked where, in Ms. Kagan's world, does one ``draw the line''?

First, her office says it is OK for the government to ban books if it doesn't like the speaker; then it says it is OK to ban pamphlets if the government doesn't like the pamphleteer--a proposition that would come as a shock to the Founders, who disseminated quite a few pamphlets criticizing the government of their day.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Kagan lost the case--and in my view, it is good that she did.

Now, I asked Ms. Kagan about her position in this case last week when we met in my office. She said she made the arguments she did because she had to defend the statute. And I understand that her office has to defend Federal law. But the client doesn't choose the argument, the lawyer does. And the argument Ms. Kagan and her office chose was that the Federal Government has the power to ban books and pamphlets. That was the position of the Solicitor General and her office.

Not only was this argument troubling to those who cherish free speech, it likely contributed to the government's defeat. But my concerns about Ms. Kagan's position in this case extend farther than the arguments she and her office made, however troubling they are.

Shortly after she and I met, the press reported that she had cowritten a memo on campaign finance restrictions when she was in the Clinton administration. In it, she says that ``unfortunately'' the Constitution stands in the way of many restrictions on spending on political speech, and she believes that the Supreme Court's precedents establishing protections from the government in this area are ``mistaken in many cases.''

And just last Thursday, she told one of our colleagues that the Court was wrong in Citizens United because it should have deferred more to Congress. But deferred to Congress on what? Deferred to Congress on a statute that is so broad that it encompasses ``full length books'' and ``pamphlets,'' as Ms. Kagan put it, and probably to a host of other materials as well? One can only assume that since Ms. Kagan was making these comments in her individual capacity, they provide a more complete picture of her views about the government's ability to restrict political speech.

No politician likes to be criticized in books, pamphlets, movies, billboards, or anywhere else, Mr. President, whether it is a President or a Senator.

But there is a far more important principle at stake here than the convenience and comfort of public officials. And that principle is this: in our country, the power of government is not so broad that it can ban books, pamphlets, and movies just because it doesn't like the speaker and doesn't like the speech. No government should have that much deference.

The administration has nominated one of its own to a lifetime position on the country's highest court. We need to be convinced that Ms. Kagan is committed to the principle that the first amendment is not, as she put it, just some ``unfortunate,'' impediment to the government's power to regulate. It applies to groups for whom Ms. Kagan and the administration might not have empathy. And it applies to speech they might not like.

So as this process continues, I look forward to learning more about Ms. Kagan's record and beliefs in area.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, all across the country this week, Americans will honor the law enforcement officers who keep our towns and communities safe and pay solemn tribute to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. National Police Week is a time to thank all those whose service preserves the rule of law, at great risk to themselves.

I wish to pay special tribute to one of those heroes today, Officer Bryan J. Durman. Officer Durman was a 27-year-old, decorated, Lexington, KY, police officer and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. He was, tragically, the first Lexington police officer to die in the line of duty in over 20 years.

This past April 29, he was responding to a noise complaint when he was struck by a car and killed. He leaves behind his wife Brandy and their 4-year-old son Brayden.

Bryan Durman went to Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in Lexington, where he was on the wrestling team. After graduation in 2001, he enlisted with the Air Force. He rose to the rank of staff sergeant and served in both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. More important, it was while serving in the Air Force that Bryan met Brandy, his wife.

Bryan's mother, Margaret Durman, says that from the time her son was a small boy, she knew he would grow up to be a peacemaker. After leaving Air Force service in July 2007, Bryan returned to Lexington to keep the peace here at home and was accepted into the Lexington police academy.

In his 3 years of service with the Lexington metro police department, Bryan earned great respect from his colleagues and the community. ``The amount of support that we have received speaks volumes about the caliber of person Bryan was and his character,'' says his wife Brandy.

For administering lifesaving CPR to a vehicle collision victim and to a woman in medical emergency in two separate instances, Bryan received the Lifesaving Award and the Exceptional Service Award. His family will be presented with those awards as a small reminder that, as his mother puts it, Bryan ``died doing something that he loved.''

During this National Police Week, as we remember our peace officers and their families, we also remember the loved ones Officer Durman leaves behind: his wife, Brandy; his son, Brayden; his mother, Margaret Durman; his sisters, Monique Wanner, Michelle Wiesman, and Danielle Hood; his brothers, John A. Day and David P. Durman II; his brother-in- law, Robert Fletcher; and many other family members and friends.

Brandy will always have a fond memory of a recent Christmas when Bryan and Brayden received toy dart guns. Father and son spent much of the day playing with their new toys. ``I found about 50 darts in the Christmas tree,'' Brandy says. ``They were in the sink, in the bathtub.''

The day after Officer Durman's death, Lexington police officers wore black bands across their badges as a tribute to their fallen brother. The bands are also a stark reminder of the hazards of the job each and every peace officer in Kentucky and across the country faces every day.

The Senate has the deepest admiration and respect for police officers in every community in the Nation. We recognize theirs is both an honorable job and a dangerous one. We recognize they bravely risk their lives for ours. I appreciate all they do. And America is grateful.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have only had a few days to consider the President's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, but a few things are already becoming clear about the administration's approach to this vacancy.

As Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is a member of the President's administration. The President, on Monday, also said: We are friends. The Vice President's chief of staff, who helped oversee her nomination, is evidently hard at work convincing members of the President's party that they will have nothing to worry about in terms of Ms. Kagan's possible appointment.

But in our constitutional order, Justices are not on anybody's team. They have a very different role to play. As a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Kagan's job description would change dramatically. Far from being a member of the President's team, she would suddenly be serving as a check on it. This is why the Founders were insistent that Justices be independent arbiters, not advocates.

As one of the Founders once put it:

Under a limited Constitution, the complete independence of

the courts of justice is peculiarly essential.

And further:

There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not

separated from the legislative and executive powers.

So it is my hope that the Obama administration does not think the ideal Supreme Court nominee is someone who would rubberstamp its policies. But this nomination does raise the question, and it is a question that needs to be answered. Americans want to know that Ms. Kagan will be independent; that she will not prejudge cases based on her personal opinions; that she will treat everyone equally, as the judicial oath requires. That is the defining characteristic of any good judge, much less a judge on the Nation's highest Court.

The simple fact is, her lack of a record--especially her lack of a judicial record, and the fact that she does not have much of a record as a practicing lawyer either--gives us no way of answering that question at this particular point with any degree of comfort.

She has never had to develop the judicial habit of saying no to an administration, and we cannot simply assume she would. Later this morning, I will have an opportunity to meet with Ms. Kagan and to mention some of the concerns I have raised to her personally. We will welcome her to the Capitol and congratulate her once again on her nomination. This is not an easy process for any nominee, but it is an important one.

Miranda Warnings

Mr. President, President Hamid Karzai will visit the Capitol today to discuss the current situation in Afghanistan. His visit reminds us that the surge of forces into Afghanistan is not yet complete and that the counterinsurgency strategy developed by General McChrystal is still in its early stages.

President Karzai's visit also reminds us of the importance of completing our work on the war supplemental. We must complete this bill to fund our forces in the field, to help General McChrystal in his efforts to ensure that the Taliban does not return to power, and to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for terrorists.

Let's remember that the 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and that it was because of this attack and al-Qaida's many other attempts to kill innocent Americans that President Obama implemented a strategy for reversing the momentum of the Taliban in Afghanistan last December.

This is why it is so worrisome and, frankly, baffling to hear the Attorney General say the administration's views on issuing Miranda warnings to terrorists are now under reconsideration because of a ``new threat,'' and because we are ``now dealing with international terrorism.''

Perhaps it is the reported involvement of TTP in the Times Square attack that the Attorney General believes is ``new.'' But most people have been aware of the terrorist threat of international terrorists to the homeland since September 11, 2001.

The fact is, the clear purpose of many of the antiterror policies this administration in its first days tried to undo through Executive order was to deal with this threat that the Attorney General is now calling ``new.'' These threats did not begin with the Times Square bomber any more than they ended on 9/11. They have been with us for a long time now, and they are as urgent today as they were 9 years ago.

Congressional Budget Office Report

Now, Mr. President, I would also like to note some news that might have slipped past some people yesterday in the midst of everything else that is going on. I am referring to the Congressional Budget Office report that the health care bill is now expected to cost $115 billion more than the administration said it would, wiping out every penny of savings they claimed the bill would produce.

This is truly astounding. Here was one of the Democrats' primary arguments in favor of their health care bill: that it would lower the deficit. Yet now we are learning that it will not. But you will not hear a word about it from the people who made that argument day in and day out for more than a year.

The fact is, the list of failed promises is growing every day. They called us alarmists for saying businesses would dump employees from their insurance plan. Yet now it is being reported that some of the Nation's biggest employers are seriously considering cutting employee health care and paying the lower cost penalties instead, just as we predicted. There goes the President's vow that ``if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.''

Another thing we heard was that the health care bill would slow the growth of health care costs for families, businesses, and government. Yet an analysis last month by the Obama administration's own Actuary found that this bill will actually increase costs and that the national spending on health care alone could go up by $1/3 trillion--$1/3 trillion.

The President and the Democrats in Congress said time and again that their health care bill would strengthen Medicare. Yet the administration's own experts now say it would drive nearly one in six hospitals into debt and threaten access to care for seniors on Medicare.

They said the bill wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. Yet now Congress's own bipartisan scorekeeper on the legislation says middle- class taxpayers will pay billions more in taxes as a result of this bill. Millions more will get hit with a fine for choosing not to buy government-approved insurance.

They said health insurance premiums would fall, but we have learned from the administration just this week that even some of the smaller reforms in this bill will actually drive up premiums.

So when Speaker Pelosi said we would have to pass this health care bill to find out what is in it, she knew what she was talking about, and what they are finding out is that Republicans were right all along. For every promise that crumbles, another one of our warnings is vindicated. Day after day, Republicans said the health care bill would raise taxes, raise premiums, and cut Medicare for seniors. We said it would increase costs because it didn't take an actuary to figure out that you don't save money on health care by spending more on it. Yet, even in the face of the clearest proof that we were right on every single count, the people who forced this bill through Congress against the will of the people continue to call us alarmists and to question our motives. But all of these headlines are already confirming what the American people already believe and what Republicans said all along: More government isn't the solution to out-of-control health care spending any more than spending money we don't have on

projects we don't need is the secret to robust job growth.

The American people are tired of the reckless spending and the failed promises, and they are tired of elected representatives who won't own up to their mistakes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut. He was aware that I was going to ask consent for 30 minutes for a colloquy between Senators Barrasso, Roberts, and myself, as in morning business.

Mr. President, let me just make a few observations, and then I will turn first to Senator Roberts.

The subject we would like to discuss is the Berwick nomination to be administrator of CMS. To be perfectly frank with you, I think many of us are alarmed by this nominee's focus on the British system, where government makes decisions for people on their care. In fact, I am reminded of a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services that I personally had a good deal of concern about last summer to limit the dissemination of information by companies who were in the Medicare Advantage business so that they could not communicate with their customers--clients--their opinions about legislation that would affect their product.

It was a stunning government gag order in effect saying to a corporation: You are not free to discuss a public issue before the Senate and the House; we are going to tell you what you can say. It was one of the most blatant examples of the government basically

squashing free speech as a condition for doing business with the government.

Now we have this nominee who is applauding--applauding--a system where care is delayed, denied, or rationed. So I am particularly concerned this attack on free speech is just a first step toward much greater government intervention.

I will be talking with Dr. Berwick about his plans, but now I would like to turn to Senator Roberts, whom I know has already spoken to Dr. Berwick, maybe as recently as today, to get his thoughts on this nominee for this very important position.

Yes. And I would say to my friends that Wyoming and Kansas and Kentucky have a lot of rural areas. One of the things that Dr. Berwick has made very clear--and there was an article he wrote called ``Buckling Down to Change,'' in which he says there ought to be a concentration of change, in which he says there ought to be a concentration of services in metropolitan areas. He says most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaged in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, and neonatal intensive care services.

What he is really saying is narrow the specialties down to metropolitan areas only. I just think of how that would work in a State such as mine. We have a city--Pikeville, KY, in the mountains--about 2\1/2\ hours from the closest major city--Lexington. I wonder how it would work in my State to have to drive 2\1/2\ hours to put a baby in a hospital's neonatal intensive care unit. I mean, clearly, what he is talking about is major rationing of services.

That would be bad enough for the urban areas that are lucky enough to still have the service at all, but for States such as Wyoming and Kentucky and Kansas, where we have a lot of people in rural areas who are pretty far removed from major urban centers, we are talking about a catastrophe, as I see it.

Senator Barrasso has practiced medicine for 25 years. I wonder what his take is on that kind of approach.

If my friend will yield, some have believed the reason he didn't want to send Dr. Berwick up during the health care debate is because it would confirm the obvious, which was the direction in which we were headed and which Senate Republicans said repeatedly during the debate on health care was the direction we were headed--and nobody has been more accurate on this issue than has Senator Roberts on the Finance Committee--which was massive rationing.

But it is hard to believe they had not decided to send the expert on rationing as soon as the debate was over.

Could I ask my friend from Wyoming, who practiced medicine for 25 years, the Congressional Budget Office just said yesterday that this bill is going to cost $115 billion more than was portrayed on the Senate floor. Would it not be reasonable to assume, based on this nominee's views on the issue of rationing, that it could be that the way they intend to save that $115 billion, if they do, is with massive and extensive rationing, by nominating an individual who has expressed himself so clearly and unambiguously on the virtues of rationing? The exploding costs that everyone, the administration's own actuaries, the Congressional Budget Office, everybody who knows anything about the subject is weighing in, in the aftermath of the health care debate, and confirming the concerns that Senate Republicans raised during the debate, every single one of them has been confirmed by independent groups that this is the way they intend to cut costs.

Yes. I just want to address the majority leader.

I say to my friend from Nevada, we are having voice votes on two judges?

Let me indicate that Senator Corker is prepared to offer an amendment and take a very short time agreement.

Right, and then Senator Corker and Senator Merkley and a vote.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his update on flood damage in Tennessee. The Commonwealth of Kentucky was impacted as well, not quite as severely but in a significant fashion. It was gratifying to get the report from the Senator from Tennessee about the status of the flood damage in his State.