Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the ranking member for that question. I would answer: Yes, indeed, her record, taken together with her committee testimony, tells us a lot about Ms. Kagan's insight and feelings about the second amendment. Let me agree with my colleague from Connecticut, however, and say I don't believe it is necessary for someone to have judicial experience to be an effective member of the Supreme Court. Clearly that is not called for in the Constitution. However, in a situation such as this, where the nominee has never written a judicial opinion of her own, where she has hardly any experience at all in the courtroom, I do think it is appropriate--and actually necessary--for us to examine her life experience and see what insights we can gain on her views on the second amendment. I would also say this: The debate is drawing to a close. The issue is probably not in doubt, but I think we owe it to the Record, we owe it to our constituents, we owe it to the American people to outline our concerns with regard to the second amendment to the Constitution, to the second article in the Bill of Rights. So I ask my colleagues to indulge me by going through some of the life experiences this nominee has. Ms. Kagan began her law career clerking for a very antigun judge, Abner Mikva, who later brought Ms. Kagan to the White House to serve as his deputy. Judge Mikva once likened the National Rifle Association to ``a street crime lobby.'' Next, Ms. Kagan's own hostility to the second amendment rights became evident during her time as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall where as a clerk she wrote that she was ``not sympathetic'' to the argument that the DC handgun ban violated an individual's second amendment rights. This is disappointing and troubling. In this memo she didn't cite text, precedent, or analyze the law or look to the Constitution. Ms. Kagan inserted her personal beliefs and said: I am not sympathetic to this individual right argument. The case that comment involved was Lee Sandidge. A business owner was arrested and convicted in the District of Columbia for possessing ammunition and an unregistered pistol without a license. The law provided up to 10 years in jail for this offense. Mr. Sandidge's second amendment claim--the one that Ms. Kagan was not sympathetic toward-- challenged the very same DC total gun ban that was struck down later by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. Ms. Kagan's lack of sympathy for Sandidge's claim demonstrates she failed to recognize that we have an individual right as citizens to bear arms. I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has now recognized this on two occasions, in Heller as well as this year, in 2010, in McDonald. Then Ms. Kagan embarked on what can only be described as a quest against gun ownership and second amendment rights during her years in the Clinton White House. She worked extensively on gun issues during President Clinton's administration which was well known for such gun control efforts. The record leaves no doubt that Ms. Kagan was a key player in shaping Clinton White House restrictive gun policies. During those years, she coauthored policy memos that advocated increased restrictions on lawful gun owners, including legislation requiring background checks for all secondary market gun purchases, a gun tracing initiative, and a call for a new gun design ``that can be shot only by authorized adults.'' According to the records of the Clinton Presidential Library, Ms. Kagan also drafted an Executive Order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic rifles that were not covered by statute. In other words, she authored an Executive Order that went beyond the statute in her quest against gun ownership. At the time of the import ban, a senior staffer who worked in the Clinton domestic policy shop that was run by Ms. Kagan, described the administration's plan as follows: ``We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.'' This was the office our nominee ran during that administration. In addition, Ms. Kagan appears to have been in charge of the Domestic Policy Council's effort to respond to the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in Printz v. the United States. The Printz case struck down parts of the 1994 Brady handgun law on tenth amendment grounds. According to the Clinton Library, even after the Supreme Court had ruled, the Clinton administration, with Ms. Kagan involved, worked to preserve unconstitutional provisions considered in many legislative and executive branch responses to the Court's decision. I would reiterate what my friend from Alabama has said. The right of every American--the individual right we have to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the Constitution--hangs by a single vote, and I am concerned that personal sympathies and a strong record of opposition to the second amendment would influence the way this person would act as a judge. But there is one other thing, and I wish to ask my friend from Nevada about this. During her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Kagan stated she had never had an occasion to look at the history on which Heller is based, and, therefore, she could not say whether she believed there is a preexisting individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Here is a talented and intelligent and articulate and brilliant law student and law professor and staffer who worked extensively on the issue of second amendment rights for years, and she taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious institutions in this country, yet she stated in her testimony that she had never had occasion to look at the history on which this was based and, therefore, she could not say whether there was a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think her credibility was quite damaged by that statement. I ask my friend Senator Ensign whether he was surprised when Ms. Kagan made that statement based on her extensive experience and interaction involving this issue?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, during this brief pause in the debate on the Supreme Court nominee, I rise to call to the attention of Senate Members my introduction of S. 3672, the Coordination of Wind and Flood Perils Act of 2010. This month is, of course, the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. We are still rebuilding on the coast, and we are still rebuilding in many areas of the gulf, in the South, as depicted on this map. Two weeks ago, I attended the opening of a municipal complex and library in the historic town of Pass Christian. The fact that we are just getting the money and just getting this library and city all rebuilt after 5 years is testimony to the extent of the destruction and the difficulty of funding projects like that. This is true in the public sector, and it is also true in the private sector. But one of the greatest impediments to rebuilding, and one of the main reasons Katrina is still not over for the people of Mississippi and other areas of the gulf is the lack of affordable insurance. This is true in Mississippi, and it is also true from Texas all the way through the gulf, south, down to the tip of Florida, and on up through the New England coastal States. Anywhere there is coastal exposure there is a problem with affordability and availability of insurance. I have had quite a number of visits to the coast in recent weeks, particularly in the last 100 days because of the oilspill. The recovery there is going to be a challenge. There will be speeches later on this month commemorating the anniversary and discussing the heroism and the resilience and the determination of the people of the coast. All of this will be appreciated and necessary, but the truth is one of the best things that could be done for the gulf coast area--not just my State of Mississippi but in the entire area--is to resolve the issue of wind insurance versus flood insurance, and that is what S. 3672 is all about: coordinating the coverage between wind and flood perils coverage. Of course, for people in this area, for people in my State of Mississippi, you need hazard insurance, you need fire insurance, as does everyone, you need wind insurance, and you need flood insurance. Back in 1968, that was the year of Hurricane Camille. It also was the year it became apparent to this Congress that something needed to be done at the Federal level to cover water damage. Hence, the National Flood Insurance Program was established in 1968. Since that time, Americans have been able to get flood insurance through the NFIP. Actually, in 1973, this Congress in its wisdom made such coverage mandatory for people mortgaging property in flood zones. Let's fast forward to 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina. Many victims who needed it didn't have flood insurance. One of the reasons they didn't have flood insurance is that the flood zone maps were wrong. I hope to a large extent this has been corrected. It is supposed to have been corrected now, and people in flood zones who have mortgages are required to have it. Oftentimes they cancel those policies, and that is something we need to attend to also, but that insurance is available. The problem is wind insurance. The private insurance coverage for wind damage has pretty much left the coastal areas of many of our States in the eastern part of the United States. So we have this situation now where a homeowner needs flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. They need their own hazard insurance that they get through their local broker. Then, they probably have to resort to the State wind pool, a State program, because private wind insurance is not available to them. Another problem we had in 2005 after Katrina is that many homeowners found themselves caught in the middle between the issue of whether it was water damage in connection with the hurricane that caused their property loss or whether it was flood damage in connection with the hurricane that caused the loss. After hurricanes such as Katrina, if a homeowner has wind and flood insurance, the homeowner often has to prove in court whether it was wind or water that caused the damage. This is unacceptable. Let me emphasize this: Individuals who had all the appropriate insurance--wind and water--were, in many instances, caught in the middle and forced to go to court to watch the insurance carriers fight among themselves. My legislation would remove the burden of determining flood or wind loss allocation from the property owner and put it where it belongs--a decision to be made between the insurers. If my bill becomes law, insurance companies, including State-run wind pools and the National Flood Insurance Program, would have to pay a claim as soon as possible after the hurricane. If there is a dispute, each would pay 50 percent. The homeowner would be paid for the loss while the parties responsible for paying the claim would work out the details. My legislation--and again, it is S. 3672, the Coordination of Wind and Flood Perils Act of 2010--would prevent homeowners from having to go to court to determine what portion of the damages were caused by wind and what portion by water. This should not be part of the duties of the homeowner. Under my legislation, if there is a dispute between the parties responsible for paying the claim, the insured would be compensated immediately and the dispute between the insurers would be resolved by arbitration. This is only a small step. It doesn't answer the whole problem. I still support the concept of putting wind coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program on a voluntary basis, as my amendment would have done in 2008. It is an amendment that has passed the House of Representatives and it is known as the multi-peril concept. That did not get majority support in the Senate and is, frankly, unlikely to get that support in short order. They are having trouble with that concept in the House of Representatives, but I wish to emphasize that I still support the multi-peril concept. This is a step. It puts us on the right track and it removes the wind and water debate. I would suggest that my friends in the Senate look at this bill. I invite them to become cosponsors, and I hope we will be able to add this simple amendment to the law in short order. I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are not in a quorum call at this time. I am told there is a brief pause. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the upcoming hearings the Judiciary Committee will hold on President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I do not envy the difficult task before the committee members. However, I would like to highlight a few things I will be watching, as a Member of this body with the constitutional duty to advise and consent, and listening for as Ms. Kagan's nomination hearings begin on Monday. First and foremost, I will be listening for indications on how closely Ms. Kagan will adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our Nation as written. The judicial oath requires judges to apply the law impartially to the facts before them--without respect to their social, moral, or political views. Although Ms. Kagan certainly has an impressive resume in academia and as a political adviser in the Clinton and Obama administrations, she lacks key courtroom experience as either a judge or as a private lawyer. Therefore, it is appropriate and vitally important that members of the committee perform their due diligence to question her judicial philosophy. This is a line of questioning that Ms. Kagan herself has endorsed. In a 1995 University of Chicago Law Review article, she wrote: The kind of inquiry that would contribute most to understanding and evaluating a nomination is . . . discussion first, of the nominee's broad judicial philosophy and second, of her views on particular constitutional issues. By ``judicial philosophy'' . . . I mean such things as the judge's understanding of the role of courts in our society, of the nature and values embodied in our Constitution, and of the proper tools and techniques of interpretation, both constitutional and statutory. I could not agree more with Ms. Kagan. I hope she will live up to her own measuring stick and provide the Senate with the open and constructive answers which she has herself advocated. In addition to her general judicial philosophy, I hope my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will question Ms. Kagan on two specific issues important to many Americans and many of my constituents in the State of Mississippi; that is, her views on abortion and the second amendment. I am concerned that many of the documents from Ms. Kagan's service as a law clerk for the late Justice Marshall and as a political adviser during the Clinton administration reflect a troubling bias. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the second amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Ms. Kagan has said publicly that she views Heller as settled precedent of the Court. But as a law clerk for Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan wrote a strikingly personal memo on gun rights. The case in question on that earlier occasion challenged the District of Columbia's handgun ban that was markedly similar to the Heller case. In her 1987 memo urging Justice Marshall to vote against hearing the case, Ms. Kagan stated: [The petitioner's] sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearm statutes violate his constitutional right ``to keep and bear arms.'' I'm not sympathetic. The recommendation itself is troubling, but the personal note she employed is even more disturbing. Rather than pointing to text and precedent, rooting her analysis in law or looking to the Constitution, Ms. Kagan chose the personal pronoun saying: ``I'm not sympathetic.'' This should concern Senators because it seems to indicate a personal aversion to the right to bear arms. I hope members of the committee will question Ms. Kagan on this issue. Ms. Kagan's work in the Clinton administration raises further questions about her views of the second amendment. According to records at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ms. Kagan was a key adviser to President Clinton on gun control efforts. She drafted an Executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic rifles and was involved in the creation of another order requiring all Federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons. She advocated various other gun control proposals, including gun tracing initiatives, legislation requiring background checks for all secondary market gun purchases, and efforts to design a gun that would automatically restrict the ability for most adults to use it. In a May article, the Los Angeles Times put it this way: As gun rights advocates viewed it, there was one clear message: The Clinton White House wanted to remove as many guns from the market as it could. Records show that Ms. Kagan was a key player in this effort. I believe the upcoming hearings present an opportunity to hear more about Ms. Kagan's views on the second amendment--a right clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights--and whether she views it as binding on all levels of government. I am confident I will not be the only one following her answers closely. With regard to the second issue, with regard to abortion, Ms. Kagan, having neither served as a judge nor spent any significant time in a courtroom, lacks a judicial record to give us insight into her views on abortion. But there are several red flags that show the need for pointed questions from Judiciary Committee members on this issue. First, Ms. Kagan has extensively criticized the 1991 Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Department of Health and Human Services' regulations that prohibit title X family planning funds from being ``used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'' The rulings in that case and others like that case are absolutely vital to protecting the unborn. Congress has the constitutional duty to maintain the power of the purse. If, as Ms. Kagan argues, that authority should be limited in the name of free speech, then the American people will lose the ability for their elected Representatives to prohibit abortion funding and provide any balance to the executive branch. One of the most noteworthy issues on which Ms. Kagan advised President Clinton during her time at the White House was partial-birth abortion--a truly reprehensible procedure. Memos from Ms. Kagan to President Clinton indicate she believed partial-birth abortion is constitutionally protected. I have profound concerns about that point of view and believe this raises serious questions about how she would interpret the Constitution if confirmed to the Supreme Court. In closing, there is no doubt these are important issues deserving lengthy and deliberate consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly for a lifetime position on the highest Court in our Nation. I hope Ms. Kagan will adhere to her own advice and be open and forthright with the committee as to her judicial philosophy and views on the specific constitutional questions I have mentioned. I look forward to joining many Americans in closely following Ms. Kagan's responses. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to inform the Senate of the accomplishments of Mississippi's Sumrall High School varsity baseball team. Earlier this year, the Bobcats set a Mississippi record by winning 67 consecutive games and winning their third straight State championship, an impressive achievement worthy of recognition. The team fell just eight wins shy of breaking the national record for consecutive wins and secured their spot as the team with the Nation's fourth longest winning streak. Some teams might have been discouraged after a loss ended such an impressive streak, but the Bobcats regrouped and went on to win their final 11 games and their third consecutive Class 3-A State Championship. The Bobcats' state title and 36-1 record earned them the top spot in USA Today's national high school baseball rankings. Sumrall High's baseball staff consists of Head Coach Larry Knight and Assistant Coaches Steve Cooley, Andy Davis, Richard Broom, and Matt Thomas. The team members and coaching staff have demonstrated outstanding teamwork, discipline, and sportsmanship. I congratulate the Sumrall High School baseball team and wish them continued success both on and off the field. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am appreciative that I am able to join today with my friend and colleague, Senator Cardin. I appreciate his joining me today to discuss an issue of great concern to both of us and to human rights advocates around the world. That is the ongoing trial in Russia of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev. In June of last year, Senator Cardin joined me in introducing a resolution urging the Senate to recognize that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have been denied basic due process rights under international law for political reasons. It is particularly appropriate, I think, that Senator Cardin and I be talking about this this afternoon because in a matter of days, Russian President Medvedev will be coming to the United States and meeting with President Obama. I think this would be a very appropriate topic for the President of the United States to bring up to the President of the Russian Federation. I can think of no greater statement that the Russian President could make on behalf of the rule of law and a movement back toward human rights in Russia than to end the show trial of these two individuals and dismiss the false charges against them. Since his conviction, Khodorkovsky has spent his time either in a Siberian prison camp or a Moscow jail cell. Currently, he spends his days sitting in a glass cage enduring a daily farce of a trial that could send him back to Siberia for more than 20 years. Amazingly, Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains unbroken. I think it appropriate that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have committed to resetting relations with the country. I support them in this worthwhile goal. Clearly, our foreign relations can always stand to be improved. I support strengthening our relations, particularly with Russia. However, this strengthening must not be at the expense of progress on the issue of the rule of law and an independent judiciary. The United States cannot publicly extol the virtues of rule of law and an independent judiciary and at the same time turn a blind eye to what has happened to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. I urge President Obama and Secretary Clinton to put the release of these two men high on the agenda as we continue to engage with Russia, and high on the agenda for President Medvedev's upcoming meeting here in Washington, DC.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague. I will go on to point out that things started coming to a head when Mr. Khodorkovsky started speaking out against the Russian Government, led by President Putin, and his company that he headed, Yukos, came into the sights of the Russian Federation. Mr. Khodorkovsky visited the United States less than a week before his arrest. He was in Washington speaking to Congressman Tom Lantos, the late Tom Lantos, a venerated human rights advocate from the House of Representatives, who had seen violations of human rights in his own rights. Mr. Khodorkovsky told Congressman Lantos that he had committed no crimes but he would not be driven into exile. He said: ``I would prefer to be a political prisoner rather than a political immigrant.'' And, of course, a political prisoner is what he is now. Shortly after his arrest, government officials accused Yukos Oil of failing to pay more than $300 billion in taxes. At the time, Yukos was Russia's largest taxpayer. Yet they were singled out for tax evasion. And PricewaterhouseCoopers had recently audited the books of Yukos, and the government tax office had approved the 2002 to 2003 tax returns just months before this trumped-up case was filed. The Russian Government took over Yukos, auctioned it off, and essentially renationalized the company, costing American stockholders $7 billion and stockholders all around the country who had believed Russia was liberalizing and becoming part of the market society. A Swiss court has ruled the auction illegal. A Dutch court has ruled the auction illegal. But even more so, they tried these two gentlemen and placed them in prison. Mr. Khodorkovsky apparently had the mistaken impression that he was entitled to freedom of speech, and we discovered that in Russia, at the time of the trial and even today, he was not entitled, in the opinion of the government, to his freedom of speech. A recent foreign policy magazine called Khodorkovsky the ``most prominent prisoner'' in Vladimir Putin's Russia and a symbol of the peril of challenging the Kremlin, which is what Mr. Khodorkovsky did. I would quote a few paragraphs from a recent AP story by Gary Peach about the testimony of a former Prime Minister who actually served during the Putin years: A former Russian prime minister turned fierce Kremlin critic came to the defense of an imprisoned tycoon on Monday-- This is a May 24 article-- telling a Moscow court that prosecutors' new charges of massive crude oil embezzlement are absurd. What we now find is that when Mr. Khodorkovsky is about to be released from his first sentence, new charges have arisen all of a sudden. After years and years of imprisonment in Siberia, new charges have arisen. Mikhail Kasyanov, who headed the government in 2000-2004, told the court that the accusations against Khodorkovsky, a former billionaire now serving an eight-year sentence in prison, had no basis in reality. This is a former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. Prosecutors claim that Khodorkovsky, along with his business partner [who is also in prison] embezzled some 350 million tons--or $25 billion worth--of crude oil while they headed the Yukos Oil Company. That's all the oil Yukos produced over six years, from 1998 to 2003. I consider the accusation absurd. He said that while Prime Minister, he received regular reports about Russia's oil companies and that Yukos consistently paid its taxes. Kasyanov, who served as Prime Minister during most of President Putin's first term, said that both the current trial and the previous one, which ended with a conviction, were politically motivated. So I would say this is indeed a damning accusation of the current trial going on, even as we speak, in Moscow.

Mr. WICKER. The editorial points out that Russia's Government is trying to think of ways to attract more foreign investment, and it juxtaposes this desire for more Western openness and investment with the Khodorkovsky matter and says that this trial has become a showcase for the Russian regime's cynicism, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law. It goes on to say: The new charges are, as Mr. Putin's own Prime Minister testified last week, absurd. Mr. Khodorkovsky and his associate, Platon Lebedev, are now accused of embezzling Yukos Oil's production--a crime that, had it occurred, would have made their previously alleged crime of tax evasion impossible. So the cynicism of these charges is that they are inconsistent with each other. Yet, in its brazenness, the Russian Federation Government and its prosecutors proceed with these charges. The article goes on to say: Mr. Khodorkovsky is looking more and more like a prisoner of conscience who haunted the previous criminal regime. It says: Mr. Obama raised the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky last year, and the State Department's most recent human rights report said the trial ``raised concerns about due process and the rule of law.'' I will say they raised concerns. Let me say in conclusion of my portion--and then I will allow my good friend from Maryland to close--this prosecution and violation of human rights and the rule of law of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky has brought the censure of the European Court of Human Rights that ruled that Mr. Khodorkovsky's rights were violated. A Swiss court has condemned the action of the Russian Federation and ruled it illegal. A Dutch court has said it is illegal. It has been denounced by such publications as Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post, a former Prime Minister who actually served under Mr. Putin. It has been denounced in actions and votes by the European Parliament, by other national parliaments, by numerous human rights groups, and by the U.S. State Department. I submit, for those within the sound of my voice--and I believe there are people on different continents listening to the sound of our voices today--it is time for the Russian President to step forward and put an end to this farce, admit that this trial has no merit in law, and it is time for prosecutors in Moscow to cease and desist on this show trial and begin to repair the reputation of the Russian Federation when it comes to human rights and the rule of law.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Indeed, the second show trial of Mr. Khodorkovsky has entered its second year. We have celebrated the anniversary of the second trial. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial by the Washington Post dated June 9, 2010, at this point.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent Senator Cardin and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for 20 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its markup of the Defense authorization bill. Normally, Senators are asked to wait for a period of days until the report can be issued and the specifics are made public. But yesterday the chairman clearly understood when we were finished with business that there were two items dealing with social policy that would be widely known immediately. I speak on those topics today with a clear understanding that the Chair knows that these items will be talked about, an exception to the general rule. Yesterday, I believe, the committee made a very grave mistake with regard to the provision involving the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. This has been the policy since the days of the Clinton administration. It has worked reasonably well. I am opposed to the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. In February of this year, Secretary Gates announced that a survey would be conducted with a view toward assessing whether this policy should be changed. There was a working group that was going to be established and a survey of servicemembers and their families would be conducted. This working group would report the results of this assessment by December of this year. At that point, the Congress and the administration would have additional information about how today's servicemembers and their families would feel about a change which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This would, of course, be a dramatic change. That was the policy. A number of us were skeptical about it, but that was the announced policy. Somehow, in the last few days that has changed, and a so-called compromise has been put forward and adopted now by the committee and apparently by the House of Representatives also that would say that while the assessment is going on--which, as I said, is to end in December--that we would vote on this bill this summer, possibly in the next few weeks, to go ahead and repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy and then to allow the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the assessment in December and see whether, indeed, the enactment of the bill by the Senate and House should go forward. This seems to be getting the cart before the horse. I want to make several points. This so-called compromise is not a compromise. It is, in effect, for all intents and purposes, a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. Giving the President and the two military people who are most answerable to him the authority to make this decision and pretend they might decide against it is a mockery, and it is a figleaf. Does anyone doubt what their decision will be? After all, the President of the United States campaigned that he wanted to do away with the don't ask, don't tell policy. There is no question he favors this. The Secretary of Defense answers directly to him. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answers directly to the President of the United States. It is foolhardy for anyone in this Senate to suggest there will be any decision other than a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. It is said that these three people will wait for the assessment to see what military members and their families think. I think Congress has the authority to do this. Congress should wait for the assessment. We might be surprised. We might be troubled by what the assessment shows. But it is, as I said, a mockery to make the decision now in May or June or July and then look forward to an assessment which is due in December. What has changed? I ask my fellow Members and the American people: What has changed? What has brought about this sudden compromise over the past weekend and attaching this bit of social engineering to the national Defense authorization bill? Frankly, I think a lot of Americans are going to conclude that politics changed. We can look at RealClearPolitics that estimates Republicans may gain six seats in the November election. That would be before the December assessment is due. Some people say Republicans may gain 8 to 10 seats. That would change attitudes considerably with regard to don't ask, don't tell. It would allow the people of the United States to be heard on this issue. Americans are justified in concluding that with this election looming, that is what changed. There has been no change in the national security needs to rush this process ahead and get the cart before the horse and make the decision before the assessment is made. The point of view of those of us in the committee who voted against the Lieberman amendment yesterday is supported by the heads of the four branches of our service. They support the original plan of Secretary Gates announced in February to do an assessment and then to make a decision based on what we find out in the assessment. I have a letter dated May 26, 2010, to Senator John McCain from George Casey, general, U.S. Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army. He says to Senator McCain that his views have not changed since his testimony. I quote directly: I continue to support the review and timeline offered by Secretary Gates. I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are on this issue. Yesterday, in their wisdom, the members of the Armed Services Committee decided they knew better than our soldiers and their families. General Casey said we need to know whether this ``impacts on readiness and unit cohesion.'' He concludes by saying: I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward. ADM Gary Roughhead, Chief of Naval Operations, in a letter to Senator McCain dated May 26 says, among other things: I testified in February about the importance of the comprehensive review that began in March and is now well under way within the Department of Defense. We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully examine potential impacts of a change in the law. Yesterday, the members of the Armed Services Committee said: No, we disagree with Admirable Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations. We don't need this review. We, as the elected representatives of the 50 States, are going to punt that decision to someone whose mind is already made up. Admirable Roughead goes on to say: I have spoken with sailors and fellow flag officers alike about the importance of conducting the review in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. In this quick reversal that occurred just yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, we abandoned the thoughtful review. GEN James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said to Senator McCain in a letter dated 25 May 2010: During testimony, I spoke of the confidence I had as a Service Chief in the DOD Working Group that Secretary Gates laid out in the wake of President Obama's guidance on ``Don't Ask-Don't Tell.'' I felt that an organized and systematic approach on such an important issue was precisely the way to develop ``best military advice.'' He goes on to say: I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. That was the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Finally, a letter from GEN Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, says: . . . my position remains that DOD should conduct a review that carefully investigates and evaluates the facts and circumstances, the potential implications, the possible complications, and potential mitigations to repealing this law. All four of our service heads were explicit in asking the committee to let the process continue. Yet, in our wisdom, with an election looming, the committee voted with a majority vote to go ahead and say: We really don't care to hear what the assessment says. We are just going to let three people make that decision on their own. I have this question for Members of the Senate who will be asked to vote on this after the break: What if the assessment comes back and says that soldiers and marines in significant numbers are not willing to continue in a voluntary service under these conditions? What if that is the result of the assessment? Then it will be too late for the Members of the House and Senate to make a change in this policy. The time to take a pause and the time to see what our members actually think is now. We can force this on the services, but in a voluntary armed force, we cannot force members to enlist. We cannot force marines, who are putting their lives on the line for what they believe is the American way of life and for our freedom and for the security of all Americans, to reenlist when their time is up. We need to know if they are going to be willing to stay in the service and to make that commitment and to put themselves in harm's way under this very drastic, dramatic change. We should not substitute our judgment for what the members of the service and their families think. And I regret that we have gone this far and regret the action of the Armed Services Committee. There is one other issue that was regrettably voted on in the affirmative by the committee yesterday, and that is with regard to abortion policy. Since 1996, we have had a policy that abortions-- elective abortions--will not be performed on our military installations. This is a policy that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by a Democratic President, President Clinton. For the past 14 years, it has been our policy that elective abortions will not be performed in our military installations. Yesterday, the committee decided to reverse this longstanding policy and to say that, indeed, abortions for whatever reason will be performed in these facilities that are paid for at taxpayer expense and are there for the care of our servicemembers, to keep them healthy and to repair their injuries. We are going to use those facilities for elective abortions. I guarantee you this will be challenged on the floor of the House and Senate with separate amendments, and Members will be given a chance to vote on this separate issue. But if this amendment stands, the medical facilities of our military installations--Fort Bragg, Columbus Air Force Base, Keesler Air Force Base in my home State of Mississippi-- will be able to be used for abortions performed late term, abortions performed for purposes of sex selection, abortions performed for any reason, abortions at will. That will be the requirement for our military installations and the medical facilities on those installations--again, another piece of social engineering, another vast and serious and consequential departure from longstanding Department of Defense policy. I regret these two positions. I call on my colleagues, Mr. President, during this Memorial Day break, when we are talking with those who have served, who have put themselves in harm's way, and when we are talking with the families of those who have served and who have given the ultimate sacrifice, that we seriously consider whether the committee has made the right decision and that we come back to Washington, DC, with a determination to reverse these two very harmful and, in my view, mistaken actions by the Armed Services Committee. With that, I wish my friend, the Acting President pro tempore of the Senate, a happy and prosperous Memorial Day, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Would the Senator from Mississippi yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of Senator Cochran relative to Walton Gresham being awarded NPGA's Bill Hill Award. Mr. Gresham has been exceptional in helping legislators on the Federal, State, and local levels understand the difficult issues confronted by the LP-Gas business. He has taken the lead in areas critical to the industry, and has unselfishly dedicated both time and resources for the betterment of the Mississippi and National Propane Gas Associations. I am proud to know Mr. Walton Gresham. I am proud to have Gresham Petroleum headquartered in Indianola, MS. And I am proud to know that Mr. Gresham has been awarded NPGA's Bill Hill Award, the propane gas industry's highest award for governmental relations activities.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I appreciate the Senator's statement. I hope we can strengthen the bill in regards to rating agencies. I also hope we can do this: We have an opportunity in some amendments later on in this debate--perhaps next week or perhaps the week after--to address this question of the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie. I think almost everyone would acknowledge that much of the problem that was caused in 2007 and 2008 stemmed from the GSEs. There has been an effort on the part of Senator Shelby and others over time to rein in and have some important regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would hope we could have an honest to goodness debate and include this very important aspect of financial reform in this legislation; otherwise, I think we haven't gotten to part of the problem. Then, I would say also, we are going to have debate over the next few days and perhaps weeks about this all-powerful consumer agency that would be created. Certainly, we need to protect the consumers. But as I understand this legislation which we will be asked to consider and to vote on and have an opportunity to debate, it creates one of the most important--one of the most powerful, all-powerful individuals in the entire Federal Government; someone who would not even have to answer to a board, as head of this all-powerful consumer protection agency. I think the fact that we are hearing more from Main Street rising up in dismay saying the Main Street agencies didn't cause these problems--the car dealers, the orthodontists who might finance payments over time, the medium-sized banks and credit unions--they say: Mr. Senator, we are not part of the problem. Why are we being penalized and brought into the purview of this all-powerful Washington, DC, regulator? I think the concerns of Main Street can be addressed by the Senate, and we can still pass a bill that will cover the abuses of Wall Street which, after all, is what we are after. So I wanted to use the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota as a springboard to begin to discuss a number of issues, including Freddie and Fannie, including dealing with too much power in the form of this regulator, as well as dealing with the issue which the Senator brought up of the rating agencies. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I think the Senator would also concede that there are many in this body and in this building who would make a case that the bill is far from adequate as regards to the rating agencies, and we will have debate about that.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have a couple more points I wish to make, and I don't have much more time. But I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak tonight, but having heard my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, speak about the problems with the rating agencies, I thought I would rise to say that in very many respects the Senator from Minnesota is correct. It is my understanding that the underlying bill as yet has no provision whatsoever dealing with the rating agencies. I think certainly if that remains, it will be a major flaw in the legislation. I don't know the details of the amendment the Senator from Minnesota was referring to, but I certainly welcome debate about the rating agencies to make sure they are accurate and to acknowledge so many mistakes that have been made by those agencies in the past. So I wish to commend the Senator for his debate about this issue.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I appreciate my colleague from Nebraska getting into the weeds because it is important that we know the details of the numbers here. I think there is also a sort of big-picture aspect to this. There are a lot of Americans out there who may not have read the details the Senator from Nebraska just outlined, but they instinctively know you can't do all this to one-sixth of our economy and save money for the Federal Government at the same time. They instinctively know this is going to turn out, as big entitlement programs always do, to be more expensive than has been estimated and it is going to cost the American taxpayer and future generations in terms of the national debt. I would like to pivot and talk about what this is going to do to State governments because that is an additional aspect over and above the gigantic numbers the Senator from Nebraska mentioned. Really, almost half of the additional coverage in this Senate bill, which the House is being asked to adopt lock, stock, and barrel without even changing so much as a semicolon, half of the coverage is going to be under Medicaid. We all know Medicaid requires a huge Federal investment, but Medicaid also always requires a State match. Under the provisions of this bill, if it is enacted, States will be told that the magnificent Federal Government has increased coverage, and now, Mr. State Legislator, Mr. State Governor, you figure out a way to pay your part of it. I know this much: In my State of Mississippi, our legislators and our Governor have had to stay up late 2 years in a row figuring out a way to pay for the Medicaid match they are already being asked to pay, much less this new mandate of additional persons who would be covered under this Senate language. There is no way the State of Mississippi can stand this new Medicaid coverage without an increase in our taxes at the State level. I don't think we can cut teachers enough, although teachers might have to be cut to pay this Federal mandate. I don't think we can cut local law enforcement enough, although that might have to be cut too. It is just a huge, unfunded burden on the States. Quite frankly, even if all of the promises that are being made on the Senate side come true--that we will clean this up in reconciliation, which I frankly doubt can possibly happen--the States are going to be faced with this huge unfunded mandate. You don't have to take our word for it on this side of the aisle. Democratic Governor after Democratic Governor has had press conferences, they have sent letters, they have sent messages, they have made themselves available to the press. Governor Bredesen of the State of Tennessee said this bill is the ``mother of all unfunded mandates'' and has urged, even at this late date, that we not go down this road. So I appreciate my friend from Nebraska pointing out what this is going to do to the Federal budget, and I would simply commend the bipartisan State officials who have been talking to anyone within the sound of their voices saying that State governments cannot afford this mandate at the State level, and it will inevitably result in an increase in taxes at the State level--something we certainly don't need at this time of economic hardship. Perhaps Senator Brownback has some thoughts he would like to add, and I know others may be joining us, too, Mr. President.