John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a close friend of the Senate, CAPT James Loeblein. Over the past three years Captain Loeblein has served as the director of the Navy Senate liaison office. Since Captain Loeblein arrived on the Senate deck he has escorted 37 codels to 42 countries. In addition to his travels, Captain Loeblein led his team of sailors with the highest degree of professionalism in support of every Member of the U.S. Senate. Throughout his time serving in the Senate liaison office, I got to know Jim. Captain Loeblein is a native of Salisbury, NC. Jim received his commission as an ensign after he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, in May 1985. He went on to graduate from the Naval War College, Newport, RI, in 1997. He has served as the executive officer aboard the USS John S. McCain, DDG 56. Captain Loeblein has also led sailors on multiple deployments commanding two strike group deployments and served as the sea combat commander for the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group all in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Under Captain Loeblein's leadership and sharp instincts, his team has been instrumental in supporting the Senate's legislative responsibility to provide our sailors with the resources they need to carry out their mission. The Senate and our Nation are indebted for his service. Next week, Captain Loeblein will officially be promoted to rear admiral, lower half. We wish him well as he prepares to take over as deputy commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command in Manama, Bahrain. I want to thank Captain Loeblein for his service and congratulate him on this hard earned promotion.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, later today President Obama is scheduled to give the first in a series of speeches about the economy. He is pivoting one more time to turn his attention to the millions of Americans who are still struggling 4 years after the recession ended. The reason I say ``one more time'' is because this morning one of the reporters said this is about the tenth time the President has pivoted to the economy. A White House adviser said on Sunday that the President is going to speak about ``what it means to be middle class in America.'' Well, I hope President Obama will talk about how his own policies have harmed and continue to harm the middle class in America. I hope he will talk about the harm that his health care law has done to hard-working families. I hope the President will finally start talking about these things because the American people have been talking about them for a long time now. I hear it every time I go home to Wyoming--almost every weekend. It doesn't matter whether I am in Fremont County, Park County, Laramie County, or Natrona County--wherever I am in Wyoming, I continue to hear about this law. Now we are even hearing about it from the very union leaders who were among the law's biggest supporters. The heads of three major labor unions put out a letter recently that warned of the damage the health care law is doing to the middle class. They wrote: The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. That is what the law's supporters are saying. They wrote that the health care law ``will shatter not only our hard- earned health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' If the President wants to talk about what it means to be middle class in America, he needs to explain why his policies are destroying the backbone of the middle class. That is what the union leaders are saying. They are seeing, just like the rest of us, that the job numbers are not good for America. In June, the number of people working part time who want to work full time soared by 322,000. There are more than 8.2 million Americans working part-time jobs because their hours were either cut back or because they can't find the full-time work they seek. The White House conceded that the law was a problem for employers when it said they needed relief from the logistical mess the law has created. That is why the Obama administration decided to delay the so- called employer mandate. That was one of the signature parts of the President's health care law. Under the law, every employer with 50 people who were working 30 hours a week or more was going to have to offer expensive government-mandated health insurance. Now we have a 1- year delay on this extremely unpopular and damaging Washington mandate. If the law is so bad for businesses that they can't handle it in 2014, it is still going to be bad for them in 2015, and that was just one regulation. The President's health care law has already created more than 20,000 pages of new regulations. Well, those regulations concern middle-class families I hear from in Wyoming, and it is not just Wyoming. The front page of the Washington Post has a headline that reads ``Health law's unintended impact on part-timers.'' For Kevin Pace, the president's health-care law could have meant better health insurance. Instead, it produced a pay cut. Like many of his colleagues, the adjunct music professor at Northern Virginia Community College managed to assemble a hefty course load despite his official status as a part-time employee. But his employer, the state-- The State of Virginia is his employer. This is not some company, it is the State of Virginia-- slashed his hours this spring to avoid a Jan. 1 requirement that all full-time workers-- As a requirement in the health care law. for large employers be offered health insurance. The law defines ``full time'' as 30 hours a week or more. This isn't a business worried about a bottom line, this is the State of Virginia. Virginia's situation provides a good lens on why. The state has more than 37,000 part-time hourly wage employees, with as many as 10,000 working more than 30 hours a week. Remember, 30 hours is the key number. Offering coverage to those workers, who include nurses-- An important part of our economy and important as far as the needs of our country-- park rangers and adjunct professors, would have been prohibitively expensive, state officials said, costing as much as $110 million annually. ``It was all about the money,'' said Sarah Redding Wilson, director of Virginia's Department of Human Resource Management. The health laws have an unintended impact on part-timers, and as a result it is hurting the middle class. Middle-class Americans are also worried about their health insurance premiums--and they have a right to worry. The McClatchy News Service ran this headline last week: ``Obama boasts of health care saves, but costs likely to rise for many.'' The article went on to say: Experts predict that premiums on individual plans will increase in most states because of the new consumer protections this sweeping legislation requires. ``Consumer protections'' is just the White House's way of saying more redtape. That includes all of the new, required services people have to have in their Washington-mandated, Washington-approved health insurance. It is all of the health care services people have to pay for in advance whether they need them, whether they want them, or whether they will ever use them. Those requirements are a big part of the reason--and another reason--that health insurance costs are still going up even though Washington Democrats promised the health care law would have the opposite effect. It is happening all across the country. Indiana was the latest State to announce that premiums are going to go up next year--not down. Last Friday the State insurance department--this is not just somebody looking around--said the average rates for people buying individual plans will go up 72 percent. That announcement follows big increases in Ohio, Maryland, Idaho, Missouri, and Kentucky. In one State after another, rates for next year are being announced, and they are much higher than they were before the President's health care law went into effect. When President Obama gives his speech today and over the next few weeks he should tell his audience the truth about what is happening to the rates and why. He should also talk to middle-class Americans about what might happen as far as their access to their family doctor under his health care law. Remember when the President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor? That was something the unions wrote about in their letter. It is a promise they think the President now isn't going to keep. Well, I think they are right. Now the Health and Human Services Department admits that individuals may not be able to keep their doctors. This comes from the Web site the Department set up to try to answer questions people have been asking about the health care law. The Department's Web site now says if you get your coverage through the government's new insurance marketplace ``you may be able to keep your current doctor.'' That is a long way from when the President of the United States stood up and promised--actually he used the word ``guarantee''--you will be able to keep your doctor. It is that kind of backpedaling and broken promises that has union leaders worried. It has them worried, it has job creators hesitant, and it has middle-class Americans all across this country concerned. Of course, the health care law is just one of the areas where overregulation is hurting the economy. Another example is President Obama's announcement last month of tighter regulations on powerplants. That is on top of the excessive redtape the administration has already put in place that makes it harder and much more expensive for America to produce American energy. Last week I introduced a bill to block President Obama from going around Congress to implement his national energy tax through regulations. The American people have repeatedly told Washington to focus on jobs, not to roll out more redtape that increases energy bills and decreases economic opportunities. The President promised that he cared about hard-working, middle-class families, but his policies, one after another, are hurting those families and are making their lives much more difficult. President Obama needs to stop the Washington spin and tell the truth about his health care law and the truth about his other failed policies. Then he needs to come back to Washington, put aside his tired, old rhetoric and work with the Republicans to do the right thing for the American people. That means coming up with a replacement health care plan to finally give people what they were asking for all along: The care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the centennial of the Trail End State Historic Site in Sheridan, WY. John Benjamin Kendrick is one of Wyoming's most remarkable politicians. As an orphan in Texas, Kendrick faced many challenges growing up. He spent much of his childhood in poverty and eventually took a job trailing cattle as far north as Montana. Finally, near the Bighorn Mountains of northeastern Wyoming, Kendrick found his home. It was there that John Kendrick and his wife Eula began their family. The couple had two children, Rosa-Maye and Manville. After years on the family's OW Ranch outside of Sheridan, Kendrick decided to build an estate in town. It took 5 tedious years to complete the dream house. With superb workmanship, inspired decoration, and fine materials, the Kendrick family finally completed the building in 1913 and named their home the Trail End. Kendrick and his family were only able to spend a short period of time in the house. In 1914, Kendrick was elected Governor of Wyoming. During his term, Governor Kendrick was known for working with the State legislature to establish a State workmen's compensation system and a Statewide public utilities commission. He also championed many important causes, including women's suffrage and support for struggling farmers. Within 2 years, he was elected to the United States Senate. He was Wyoming's first Senator to be elected by popular vote under the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. During his 17 years in the U.S. Senate, he focused on issues that are still important to Wyoming: Irrigation, land use, and the protection of natural resources. Kendrick served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. He was also a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry as well as the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation. Near the end of his third term, Kendrick announced his retirement and his intention to move home to Sheridan and his beloved Trail End. Sadly, at the age of 76 before his retirement commenced, he passed away in Sheridan surrounded by his family. Today, the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources is preserving Kendrick's heritage through the care of the Trail End State Historic Site, also known as the Kendrick Mansion. Visitors can tour the architectural gem which is completely furnished with the family's original furniture and personal items. Senator Kendrick was a staunch supporter of protecting Wyoming's history and landmarks, including the beauty of Yellowstone National Park and the Teton Mountain Range. I rise today to ask that we remember another piece of history--the magnificent house that the Kendrick family called home--the Trail End. Built by a self-made leader, visitors will forever be astonished by the beauty that John B. Kendrick brought to Sheridan, WY, and the entire Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I would like to address two topics. One is that within the hour President Obama is going to be delivering remarks about his health care law. I would like for all Americans to pay close attention to the President's remarks and see if he continues to make promises he knows he cannot keep. Is he going to once again say that if you like what you have, you can keep it? Well, if so, we know that is not true. Just ask the unions that recently wrote a letter to Majority Leader Reid and to Nancy Pelosi about how this law is not allowing them to keep the insurance they have. Is the President going to call it affordable and say again that premiums will decrease by an average of $2,500 per family? Well, if so, we know that is not true. Just ask the folks in Ohio, where the average individual market health insurance premium in 2014 is going to cost about 88 percent more. Is the President going to say again that the law is working as it is supposed to work? Well, if so, we know that is not true. Just ask the administration why they decided to delay the disastrous employer mandate that is making it harder for employers to hire new workers and for Americans to find full-time jobs. Is the President going to say this law is good for young Americans? If so, we know that is not true. Just ask the young, healthy adults who will see insurance rates double or even triple when they look to buy individual coverage starting next year. It is time for the President to level with the American people. This law has been bad for patients, it has been bad for providers--the people who take care of those patients, the nurses and the doctors--and it is terrible for taxpayers. We need to repeal this law and replace it with real reforms that help Americans get the care they need from a doctor they choose, at lower cost.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the second topic I would like to address is the issue of energy and a national energy tax, which the President essentially proposed in his June 25 speech. At that time he unveiled what I believe is a national energy tax that is going to discourage job creation and increase energy bills for American families. This announcement that he made about existing powerplants--existing powerplants--came after the administration has already moved forward with excessive redtape that makes it harder and more expensive for America to produce energy. It also came as a complete surprise to Members of the Senate, especially since Gina McCarthy, the President's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency--a nominee whom we will be voting on today--since that nominee told Congress that it was not going to happen. She is currently the Assistant Administrator of the Air and Radiation Office at the EPA. Here is what she told the Senate about regulations on existing powerplants, the ones the President talked about on June 25. She said: The agency is not currently developing any existing source greenhouse gas regulations for power plants. None. As a result we have performed no analysis that would identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source program. So I would say it is clear with President Obama's June 25 announcement on existing powerplants that Gina McCarthy is either out of the loop or out of control. She either did not tell the truth to the Senate in confirmation hearings in response to questions or she does not know what is going on in her own agency. Either way, she is not the person to lead the EPA. I would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose McCarthy in her nomination. This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with having an agency that is accountable to the elected representatives of the American people. I believe this behavior is indicative of the way the EPA has been run during Gina McCarthy's reign as an Assistant Administrator of the EPA. Many of my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have expressed concerns with the lack of transparency at this specific agency. One of the major areas of concern is the use of the so-called sue-and-settle tactics. This is where environmental activist groups sue the EPA or they sue other Federal agencies to make policy. Often, they find like-minded colleagues and allies in the EPA. Here is how it works. If environmental activists want to impose new restrictions on, say, farms, it is easy to sue the government to impose those restrictions. At the EPA, rather than fight the restrictions, they agree to this and they say: OK. We will do a court settlement. The EPA does not contest the new restrictions because the EPA wanted them in the first place. The agency just did not want to have to go through a lengthy rulemaking process with public comments in the light of day. The judge signs off on the agreement, and in a matter of weeks the law is made. So I asked the nominee in writing: Do you believe sue-and-settle agreements are an open and transparent way to make public policy that significantly impacts Americans? She stated in her answer: I recognize that this committee has focused many of its questions on EPA settlement practices and, if confirmed, I commit to learning more-- Learning more-- about the Agency's practices in settling litigation across its program areas. Well, some of the most egregious sue-and-settle agreements have dealt with the Clean Air Act, and she has been in charge of the air office at EPA for almost all of President Obama's first term. I find it very difficult to believe she did not know what was going on. In fact, in answering my next question to her--I asked: Do you believe States and communities impacted by sue-and-settle agreements should have a say in court agreements that might severely impact them--she said: [M]ost litigation against EPA arises under the Clean Air Act. . . . Of course. So my question is, either she knew what was going on with regard to the Clean Air Act lawsuits against the Agency, the area that she completely was in control of, or she does not know what is going on in her own department. Once again, either way, such a person should not be confirmed to be in charge of the entire EPA. As most folks know, my home State, Wyoming, is a coal State. The administration has actively sought to eliminate this industry from the American economy. It is no surprise to some that many of us coal-State colleagues fight vigorously to oppose the President's anti-coal policies. Ms. McCarthy has been the President's field general in implementing these policies. These policies greatly affect families all across Wyoming and across the country. So even though I strongly oppose these policies, I still wanted to meet with the nominee so I could explain to her how this administration's policies are hurting real people in my home State and across the country. I believed if we had a face-to-face meeting I might be able to convince her to alter or alleviate the worst impact of the policies pursued by this administration through the EPA. In that personal meeting with me, the nominee was very sympathetic with the concerns I and others had expressed regarding the impact of EPA regulations on jobs. She also expressed in many instances that she would look for flexibility, but she said she was unfortunately bound by agency processes and the law. Well, if she is concerned with the impact EPA regulations are having on jobs and communities, I believe she should have sought the flexibility she needed from Congress to help save these communities and these jobs. In a followup to that meeting, I asked in writing: What specific legislative changes would you recommend to provide the flexibility to protect workers, to protect families, to protect communities from job losses that might occur as a result of EPA regulations? What she stated was ``very sensitive to the state of the economy and to the impacts of EPA regulations on jobs.'' And then, ``If confirmed, I would continue to work hard to seek opportunities to find more cost- effective approaches to protecting human health and the environment.'' This administration has pummeled coal country, powerplants, manufacturing, and small businesses for 4 years, pursuing their preferred version of a clean energy future. Since 2009, unemployment has remained stagnant. Nearly 10 percent of our coal energy capacity is gone. Not once has Ms. McCarthy approached Congress for flexibility in implementing her own rules. I see no reason why that would happen in the future. I would like to commend EPW ranking member Senator Vitter for leading an effort to secure information from the nominee. I signed a letter, along with Senator Vitter and other members of the EPW Committee, seeking access to the scientific data and the reasoning behind the justification for expensive new rules and regulations that hurt the economy, that cost jobs, seeking true whole economy modeling on EPA's Clean Air Act regulations, so we can understand the true cost of these rules. I was also seeking an assurance that Gina McCarthy and this administration honor its commitment to transparency and stop using delay tactics to keep the true cost of these regulations from the American people. Senator Vitter was able to get some information on many of our requests. It was not easy and the nominee was not entirely forthcoming. In fact, she has not complied with many of the document requests we have made. I can assure the administration that none of us who signed that letter making these requests plan on giving up on securing basic information that should be readily available to the public. Gina McCarthy is the wrong candidate to head the Environmental Protection Agency. America deserves better. I would ask that my colleagues oppose the nomination not on the content of this administration's policies but on the actions of this specific nominee with regard to accountability, competence, and transparency. I believe this nominee gets a failing grade on all three counts.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, there has been some confusion about the President's health care law recently, so I come to the floor to try to clear up one point. Just before the Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration admitted to the world that its health care law is not working out according to plan. It did it in an unusual way--in a blog post--right before the Fourth of July holiday, but yet it is known to the world. By choosing to delay the law's employer mandate, the President conceded it would place a tremendous burden on America's job creators. Then, just this past Sunday, the Senate majority leader went on ``Meet the Press,'' on television, and said: ``ObamaCare has been wonderful for America.'' Wonderful for America? Senator Reid's comments demonstrate once again that Democrats in Washington--the people who voted for this law--are not listening to the American people. I hear it when I return home to Wyoming every weekend. I did this past weekend. I hear it as Members of the Senate do when they talk to friends from home. I heard it today from people from Gillette and Evanston and Cody that this health care law is unraveling. So I just want to make a couple of things clear to everyone. After 3\1/2\ years, we know the Obama health care law is not working. It is a train wreck. If the law was wonderful, it wouldn't increase premiums. It wouldn't shrink paychecks. It wouldn't discourage job creation. If the law was wonderful, we wouldn't put the feared IRS as the enforcer of the health care law. If the law was wonderful, the administration wouldn't have delayed one of its most critical parts. It is clear to me that even President Obama does not share Senator Reid's opinion that the health care law is wonderful. This law is not wonderful for America. It is obviously terrible for America's job creators. It is also terrible for many people trying to make a living in this country. There was an article on the front page of the New York Times recently--Wednesday, July 10--with the headline: ``At Restaurant, Delay Is Help on Health Law.'' The delay is a help. This article--front page, above the fold of the New York Times-- looked at a small Maryland restaurant called the Shanty Grille. What is going on at that restaurant makes the case better than any actuarial study, any sort of charts or any economic model ever could because it is a story about real people and their lives. The article talked about how the law was hurting everyone from the owner of the restaurant to the uninsured waiter, to the chef who has insurance. All of them were hurt by this health care law. Because for each of these people and for millions of others similar to them across the country, the reality of health care reform is that it has fallen far short of the President's many promises. According to this article in the New York Times, the restaurant's owner is on a pace to finally this year turn a profit. It will be the first profit since the economic downturn a number of years ago. Four years after the recession ended, he is finally set to recover and get back into the black. If he has to provide expensive Washington- approved, Washington-mandated health insurance for every employee, though, that profit will quickly evaporate. So that would certainly harm this employer. What about the employees? Let's talk about the people this is designed to help. It turns out the younger workers at the restaurant actually aren't too interested in having this health insurance coverage. They say they would rather have more money in their paychecks so they could decide how they want to spend it, not how the President thinks they should spend it. So they stand to lose out once the law's individual mandate starts in January because they are going to have to go out and buy insurance which may be much more than they want or need or can afford. The employees at the restaurant who already have health insurance are worried too. They are concerned they will not be able to keep their current coverage. When the President stopped his disastrous employer mandate, I believe he actually made the right decision, but I have some doubts about his reasoning. I think this was purely for political reasons. Regardless of how and why the President made the decision, a 1-year delay in this one policy doesn't solve the problem; it only extends the problem. First, this restaurant and other small businesses can't afford and can't expand or hire more staff because they still face the mandate in 2015. Actually, the final line in this article on the front page of the New York Times, when we carry over and read the end of it, says: We are not going to expand. ``No more expansion.'' Second, many businesses are cutting back workers to part-time status because of the health care law. President Obama has had nothing to say to those Americans looking for full-time work but trapped in a part- time job, and part-time is defined by the health care law, which is different than most Americans think of or define part-time work. Third, the law still requires all of the employees, as with nearly everyone else in America, that they have to buy pricey health insurance starting January 1. That is a problem for the President and he knows it. Here is how an article in Politico put it this past weekend. This article is entitled ``ObamaCare's Missing Mandate.'' It says: The massive coast-to-coast campaign to get people to sign up for ObamaCare is light on mentions of one central element: The widely disliked individual mandate. The Politico article goes on to say: Poll after poll has found that Americans don't like being told they have to get insurance or face a penalty. So the groups doing outreach don't plan to draw much attention to it. The employer mandate has collapsed. The individual mandate is unpopular, so they just don't want to talk about it. A lot of the people who do have to buy this new Washington-mandated, Washington-approved insurance will have to buy it through the government exchanges. Of course, these may not be ready on time. There are 77 days left for these to be ready. Even if they are up and running by the deadline, we have seen ample evidence that premiums will be much higher than they were before the mandate. That is especially true for young healthy adults who the President expects to pay more in order to help older sicker people pay less. But a lot of younger healthier people are going to have to pay more for that one older sicker person. These weren't the kinds of reforms Democrats promised when they were forcing this plan through Congress on strictly party-line votes. During the debate, Republicans made suggestions to improve the health care law, but we were shut out of the backrooms where the Democrats struck their deals. In the end Democrats drafted their law so badly that the negative side effects and unintended consequences were inevitable. The New York Times article shows how some of these side effects are hurting millions of Americans--not just those working at the restaurant, including the restaurant owner, in Maryland. We all know President Obama likes to hold photo ops with people who he says are helped by the law. It is time for him to meet with people such as the ones featured on the front page of the New York Times-- people who are being hurt by his health care law. It is time for the President to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans to truly talk about how we can reform health care in this country. Delaying the employer mandate for 1 year is not enough. It doesn't eliminate the burdens of this costly law. The House is scheduled to vote this week to delay the individual mandate. The Senate should do the same. It is time for the President and for Senator Reid to listen to the victims of ObamaCare. President Obama was right to recognize his health care law is not working out. Senator Reid was totally wrong because ObamaCare is not wonderful for America. It is turning into a costly failure. The only appropriate course at this point is to permanently delay implementing the rest of the law and to replace it with reform that works. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the centennial of Kaycee, Wyoming. The late Chris LeDoux, country singer and beloved citizen of Kaycee, once sang ``Well, I just smile because they don't understand, but if they ever saw a sunrise on a mountain mornin', watched those cotton candy clouds roll by, they'd know why I live beneath these Western skies.'' The citizens of Kaycee will tell anyone they meet that no truer words have ever been spoken about their town. Located in northeastern Wyoming, Kaycee is nestled in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains with the Powder River flowing through its heart and the sprawling plains spread out before it. I stand here today to honor the town in its 100 year celebration, but many citizens would tell you that the town is 107. In 1906, the citizens in this blooming new municipality filed for incorporation, but the town went without a city government until the first town council meeting on August 12, 1913. Whether the town's age is 100 or 107, we congratulate Kaycee on this important milestone. Kaycee has a rich and varied history. Before the settlers and the ranchers came, Kaycee and the area surrounding it was the home of the Northern Cheyenne and Pawnee. Following the 1876 Battle of Dull Knife, the Cheyenne survivors surrendered and relocated, first to a reservation in Oklahoma, and then finally to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid also used the beautiful but rough mountain terrain of the Kaycee area to elude capture by lawmen and bounty hunters at the Hole in the Wall Canyon. Ranchers and cowboys were very important in the development of the area. The men driving cattle through the region needed supplies, thus creating an opportunity for businesses at the Powder River crossing. However, the area was not tamed until after the 1892 Johnson County cattle war. This range war between small ranchers and larger ranching operations eventually required the intervention of President Benjamin Harrison. As the battles for land settled down, ranchers began to expand agriculture in the area and people from all walks of life came to Kaycee to create new lives for themselves. Some ranchers brought in sheep to graze the prairies, and with the sheep came the unique culture of the sheepherders. Among these are the Basque people who traveled from the Pyrenees Mountains on the border between Spain and France. Their legacy is strong with the people of Kaycee today. In addition to providing for the diverse wildlife and agriculture, the rich hills of Kaycee have abundant energy resources. Every day, citizens of this great community are working to increase our Nation's energy independence by mining uranium and bentonite, and drilling oil. In honor of the centennial of Kaycee, Wyoming, I invite my colleagues to see this wonderful place in person. I applaud the residents of the town for their efforts to celebrate such rich history and to present it to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the majority leader this morning. What he said was confirming nominees should be the norm, not the exception--confirming nominees should be the norm, not the exception. Well, I would ask, respectfully, that the majority leader take a look at actually the record because you cannot ignore the facts. Of the 1,564 nominations that President Obama has sent to the Senate, only 4 have been rejected--4 of 1,564. During the first 2 years of the President's first term in office--the 111th Congress--the Senate confirmed 9,020 nominees and rejected 1. In the second portion of that first term--which was the 112th Congress--the Senate confirmed 574 nominees and rejected just 2. Now, during the 113th Congress, the Senate has confirmed 66 nominees and rejected just 1. In terms of Cabinet nominees--and we heard the majority leader speak of that--the Congressional Research Service shows that President Obama's nominees have waited an average of 51 days. That is shorter than for President George W. Bush and shorter than the time under President Clinton. When you take a look at judges--and the majority leader talked about that--the Democrats should remember the Senate has already confirmed more judges this year so far than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. When you go over this item by item, detail by detail, what you see is that confirming nominees is the norm, not the exception. It was interesting to listen to the majority leader talk about Don Berwick, who was actually nominated to be the head of Health and Human Services, Medicare. As the Medicare nominee, what happened? The Democratic chairman of the committee never ever scheduled a hearing. The Democrats are in charge of that nominee. The President made a recess appointment. There was never even a nomination hearing. We go through the years and look at the quotes, and here is Senator Reid in 2005: Some in this Chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. He said: They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. Senator Reid said: I doubt that that's true. I think we should all follow that advice. We are not wiser than the Founding Fathers. It is not time to throw out the rules. Then, even as majority leader, in 2009, Senator Reid said: [T]he nuclear option was the most important issue I've ever worked on in my entire career, because if that had gone forward it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it. So there is not a problem with President Obama's nominees being treated fairly and being treated in a timely fashion. There is not a problem with his nominees in terms of not being confirmed--1,560 confirmed, 4 rejected. Senate Democrats should remember--should remember--their prior commitments and abandon this plan before irreparably damaging the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week our Nation celebrated America's Independence Day, and the Obama administration took advantage of the holiday to slip out a couple of announcements about its health care law. The first one came late one day as the media and most of the Nation were distracted by their plans for the Fourth of July. The administration finally had to admit to all of America that their health care law is unraveling before their eyes. Several months ago Senator Baucus predicted that the law was headed for what he called a train wreck, and last week we saw the train go off the rails. What happened was the Treasury Department put out a blog post, written by an assistant secretary late in the day on July 2, that said it would postpone the implementation of the employer mandate part of the health care law until 2015. This was one of the signature parts of the President's health care law. Under the law, every employer with more than 50 people working 30 hours or more a week was going to have to offer expensive government- mandated health insurance. Now we have a 1-year delay of this extremely unpopular and damaging Washington mandate. Anytime you see the Obama administration leak news like that late in the day right before a holiday with the President out of the country, you can bet it is bad news for him and for them. Presidents do not delay things that are popular and that actually people want and like. When you see them try to hide it in a blog post, that is another sign. Here is what the New York Times said, front page: Crucial mandate delayed a year for health law. Large companies won't need to offer plans until 2015. GOP seizes on shift. The Washington Post ran a headline, page 1: Health-care rule is delayed a year. A setback for Obama law. The Wall Street Journal said: Health law penalties delayed. The Obama administration has tried to hide its bad news, but it failed. It also tried to spin the collapse of one of the law's most important features as good news. But as we see it here, Washington Post, ``A setback for Obama law.'' The Treasury Department's blog post claimed it was implementing the law ``in a careful, thoughtful manner.'' If they were interested in careful and thoughtful, Washington Democrats never would have pushed through this reckless law in the first place, a law that many of them admit they never even read. Using that much Washington spin when it tries to sneak out bad news is another sure-fire sign that the White House is trying to hide the train wreck. The President and his supporters have been bragging about this part of the law for years. Now here they are quietly dropping it for a year and pretending things are going well for the law. What does this announcement mean? First of all, this is a clear admission that the President's health care law is unaffordable, unworkable, and unpopular. Second, it may be too late. Here is a headline from CNN Money yesterday. They wrote: For Fatburger and others, Obamacare delay came too late. The article says for many small businesses such as fast-foot franchises, they have already begun adjusting to the law's burdensome requirements. One business owner said the delay won't help his employees. He said: All it's doing is causing confusion, anxiety, and the workers are paying the price. The workers are paying the price. Now the mandate's a moving target. It's very, very challenging. For a lot of businesses, the adjustments they had to make included cutting back workers' hours. Let's look at the latest employment numbers released last Friday. In June, the number of people working part time--these are people who actually want to work more--soared by over 322,000. There are now 8.2 million Americans working part-time jobs because their hours were cut back or because they could not find full-time work. Republicans have been warning this would happen because of the Democrats' health care law and that is exactly what has been happening for months now. The White House admitted as much when it said employers needed relief from the logistical mess the law created. If the law makes it so bad for businesses that they can't handle it in 2014, I will tell you it is still going to be bad for them in 2015. If it is bad for employers, it is going to be bad for men and women on the street, the hard workers of America. When do they get relief? Will the administration now postpone the requirements that every man, woman, and child in America has to buy expensive government-mandated insurance? I hope they do. You can bet labor unions and other special interest groups are going to step up their lobbying to postpone the parts of the law that hurt them. Even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is asking for a waiver from portions of the law. Let me be clear. I think it is a good thing for employers that they will not have to face this job-killing mandate next year, but why should they have to face it at all? Is the Obama administration finally seeing the light on what a disaster it will be to implement or is it another gimmick? Well, as Ronald Reagan once said: They only come around on your side when they want to get their hands on your wallet. This 1-year postponement is not a real solution. It is not designed to help job creators or taxpayers. It is designed to delay the train wreck until after the 2014 elections. This 1-year postponement, in my opinion, is a cynical political ploy to try to fool the voters one more time. Don't just take my word for it, because CNBC asked Peter Orszag about it the other day. People know he headed President Obama's Office of Management and Budget in the President's first term. He was a big proponent and supporter of the law. He told CNBC that White House officials ``by definition,'' he said, thought that delaying the employer mandate would help them politically ``or they wouldn't have done it.'' ``By definition,'' therefore, they thought it would help them ``or they wouldn't have done it.'' If they didn't expect it to help them politically, ``they wouldn't have done it.'' That is an incredible admission by a member of the Obama administration, his inside team. Just because the President thinks this is good for him politically doesn't mean it is good for the country. On Friday, the Obama administration also tried to sneak out another admission that its health care law is not working. Remember, even though employers have another year before their mandate kicks in, all the people still have to buy expensive Washington-approved, Washington- mandated insurance and they have to do that by this upcoming January 1. To try to hide some of the costs, taxpayers are going to subsidize the higher premiums some people have to pay. The Wall Street Journal just last Monday: Insurance Costs Set For A Jolt. For the healthy, rates could soar under new law. Insurance Costs Set For A Jolt. To try to hide some of the cost, taxpayers are going to subsidize the higher premiums some people would have to pay, but the prices are going to go up so high subsidies may cover some but not all. If someone wanted the subsidy, the government, of course, will have to verify those people deserve the subsidy. Not anymore, because now, under the administration's new policy, buried away in 606 pages of regulations, on Friday, they said nobody is going to check those answers. In an editorial yesterday, the Wall Street Journal called these ``ObamaCare's liar subsidies.'' The paper agreed that managing the law's rules and regulations was complicated: ``Yet,'' the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote, ``this is the system Democrats installed when they passed the law, which is not supposed to be optional due to administrative incompetence.'' Administrative incompetence is exactly what this is. It is also a recipe for rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. And it is an abuse in the taxpayer subsidies. I have criticized the complicated process the administration was setting up to verify people's subsidy applications. That is because I think it is a tremendous example of government overreach and because Washington bureaucrats at the IRS and other agencies have shown they can't be trusted with that kind of information. The solution now, apparently, is to scrap the verification system. We should be cutting the cost of insurance. That is what people wanted. That is why we had health care reform, to get down the cost of care, not driving up the costs, giving subsidies to a select few people and giving Washington more power to watch over the whole system. The American people do not need to put off the wreck until the train goes around one more bend. They want to stop the train wreck from happening at all. The American people want more than a temporary delay of one part of this terrible health care law. They want a permanent repeal of the whole thing. Now that the Obama administration has admitted its law is too complicated and would have too many negative side effects, it is time for it to set aside the political games and do what is best for the country. It is time to repeal this bad law and replace it with health care reform that will work. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi in strongly supporting the nomination of Greg Phillips to a seat on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Greg Phillips will be an outstanding judge. He graduated with honors, as you heard from Senator Enzi, from the University of Wyoming College of Law. He has worked in private practice, he has worked in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Wyoming, and he currently serves as attorney general for the State of Wyoming. The breadth of his experience, his understanding of the law and the role of a judge, as well as the thoroughness with which he approaches his responsibilities--well, they will serve him well. The people who know him best--his peers--uniformly praise his intellect, his diligence, and his fairness. His former boss, U.S. district judge Alan Johnson, said this in a recent letter to Senator Enzi: Again and again, local defense attorneys have expressed their appreciation for the fair handed, respectful, and even tempered treatment they have received from Greg Phillips. We are very fortunate in Wyoming to have Greg Phillips nominated for the bench. I have no doubt that as his career continues, he will become a successful and a respected member of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I strongly encourage all Members of the Senate to join Senator Enzi and me in voting to confirm Greg Phillips. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I want to join the Republican leader in expressing my appreciation of Senator Scott today, not just for his maiden speech but because we have new pages on the Senate floor and so it is their first time, and I see the bright eyes of these young people looking up to the Senator as he gives his maiden speech as he talks about the next generation. I was thinking a bit, because I saw an editorial the Senator had written published Sunday a week ago--``IRS targeting scandal shows need for reform''--and so I was happy to hear the Senator talking about some of the things happening there, because he talks about responsibility, accountability, and the kinds of things we heard in his maiden speech today. He writes in a concise way, also a courageous way, so I want to join the Republican leader in welcoming the new Senator and his comments, and I look forward to working with him for many years to come. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to honor the residents of Washakie County, WY as they celebrate their Centennial. Located in northern Wyoming, and nestled in the Big Horn Basin, Washakie County is a great place to live and work. Nearly 8,500 residents call Ten Sleep and Worland and the surrounding rural areas home. This unique county offers a glimpse into Wyoming's traditions and proud culture. Washakie County got its start when Wyoming Gov. Joseph M. Carey signed the enabling act on April 19, 1911. Worland was chosen over Ten Sleep in the election for county seat in November 1912 by a vote of 582 to 245. County officers took their positions to launch the county in January 1913. Washakie County was named for the head chief of the Shoshone people, Chief Washakie. He was so important to our State and Nation that Wyoming chose to commemorate his leadership by placing a sculpture of him by Dave McGary in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center's Emancipation Hall. World-class archaeological sites are plentiful throughout the Big Horn Basin. Worland boasts one of the finest interpretive centers for geology, archaeology, and paleontology at the Washakie Museum and Cultural Center. Exhibits portray the historical people first inhabiting Wyoming's northern area. The Colby Mammoth Site near the Big Horn River contained some of the earliest known evidence of human activity in the Cowboy State. One of Washakie County's most famous citizens is George Frison. This world-renowned archeologist began a lifelong love of archeology when he found stone tools, rock shelters, and rock art on his family ranch near Ten Sleep. His study of the prehistoric hunters of the high plains earned him a place on the National Academy of Sciences. In the past 100 years, Washakie County has seen a variety of industries thrive and evolve. Agriculture has long been the backbone of the area. Pioneering irrigation districts made it possible for hard- working operations to survive off the Big Horn River, fed by Wyoming's steep mountain snow runoff. Farmers spend their summer tending to the fields for a variety of crops, including barley for the hops component in MillerCoors and Budweiser products. A number of farms produce sugar beets that are processed by Wyoming Sugar Company LLC, which is owned by producer-investors. Other crops grown in the area include alfalfa, beans, beets, and corn. Residents of Washakie County have worked hard to ensure a healthy relationship between energy, natural resources, and agriculture. Oil reserves were discovered as far back as 1914. Coal bed methane has also boomed over the years, helping the United States move toward our goal of energy independence. Bentonite is abundant throughout the Basin, helping make Wyoming the leading bentonite supplier in the world. Ten Sleep currently holds the honor of Wyoming's ``Best Tasting Drinking Water'' proclaimed by the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems. Water from the Madison Aquifer is not only bragged about, it also provides the opportunity for a niche industry. Relied upon for decades by local farmers and ranchers, Aquavista 100% Pure Artesian Drinking Water is bottled locally. Admiral Beverage Corporation also utilizes the water source. Operations began in Worland in 1945 and they have become the primary supplier of carbonated soft drinks throughout the region. Washakie County welcomes all adventure seekers, young and old. In the winter, the Meadowlark Ski Lodge hosts skiers and snowboards within the boundaries of the Big Horn National Forest. Endless recreation opportunities can be found on over 900,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management public land access, including hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, rock climbing, photography, and wildlife watching. In fact, you can still observe horses roaming the rolling hills and rugged canyons and badlands within the Fifteenmile Herd Management Area, established in 1985. US highway 16's Scenic Byway is an ideal route for travelers headed to Yellowstone. The majestic vistas, seen while driving though Ten Sleep Canyon, are unparalleled. It is an honor to recognize the residents of Washakie County as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. This year, the Washakie County Centennial Committee has planned a countywide celebration on July 12 and 13 to commemorate this milestone. A committee of dedicated citizens spearheaded this celebration and deserves recognition. A big thank you goes to Cheri Shelp, Dustin Fuller, Lauree Schmeltzer, Phyllis Lewis, Bert Bresach, Linda Abell, and Sherryl Ferguson. I invite my colleagues to visit the communities of Washakie County. The county's rich heritage, geological wonders, and genuine cowboy hospitality provide a truly wonderful experience to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk this week about the big push by President Obama and his allies to promote the health care law. We are less than 100 days out from the implementation of that law. People in Wyoming are already feeling the effects of the Democrats' health care law. The law says employers with more than 50 full-time employees have to provide expensive, one-size-fits-all health insurance. Employers all across the country are cutting full-time workers back to part-time status and cutting their shifts to less than 30 hours a week. Thirty hours a week is the cutoff point to be considered a full-time worker under the Democrats' health care law. As a result of the Democrats' health care law, we are starting to get stories like the one from the Rocket-Miner newspaper in Rock Springs, WY, that came out yesterday. The subheadline is ``School district looks at coverage, worker options,'' and that is under the headline of ``Health Care Reform.'' Here is what the article says: More than 500 employees working for Sweetwater County School District No. 1 could see a reduction in their paychecks for the upcoming school year. The district may reduce hours for part-time employees to exempt it from covering them on its insurance plan under President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is the Rocket-Miner newspaper in Rock Springs, WY, Tuesday, June 25. The article goes on to explain that the school district has more than 500 employees who are working between 30 and 34 hours a week. Those are the people that the health care law is threatening the most. The article goes on to say these workers ``are likely to see their hours decreased by up to five hours.'' So they will be cutting the hours of workers from 34 hours and getting them down to 29 hours. It quotes the school board chairman saying that the huge chunk of money it would need to provide Washington-approved insurance for everyone would have to come out of classrooms and other essentials. Taking money out of classrooms and other essentials, he says: ``We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars.'' Well, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't a very impressive amount to Washington Democrats, but for a small school district in Wyoming, that is a big hit to their budget. It is a lot of pain that the law is inflicting on those teachers and on those students. So for the employees who are going to see their hours cut from 35 hours to fewer than 30 hours, the Democrats' health care law is hitting their paychecks, and hitting it hard. Well, that was yesterday. Today in the Gillette News Record, Kathy Brown wrote: ``School trustees consider changes with ObamaCare.'' Here is what they say in Campbell County: About 200 part-time positions could be affected. It does mean the district must track the hours of employees much more closely, and consider what to do with 320 substitute teachers, 27 substitute bus drivers, 23 coaches, eight temporary and four summer-only employees. Before the July 17 meeting, school officials will try to provide information to trustees on hours and possible costs. ``This is a paperwork nightmare,'' says one of the trustees. She wondered if the district would have to hire more employees just to do the paperwork and tracking. There are nearly 8 million people in this country who are working part time because they cannot find full-time work. These are not just numbers in a monthly unemployment report, these are people all across the country in towns such as Rock Springs and Gillette, WY. They want to work and provide for their families, but they are suffering from the bad economic recovery which has been caused by the failed policies of Washington Democrats. Then they get hit a second time with this terrible health care law. This health care law cuts back their hours and cuts their paychecks even more. I want to make one more point about the health care law. This headline is from the front page of this morning's Investor's Business Daily, June 26, 2013. It says: ``Privacy Falls Victim To ObamaCare Hub.'' The hub they are talking about is the database of information about people that was created by this health care law. It was created so Washington could figure out who has health insurance and who might qualify for subsidies under the law. With this data hub Washington bureaucrats are going to have access to a huge amount of personal information about people all across the country. Here is what the article says: The ObamaCare hub will ``interact'' with seven other federal agencies: Social Security Administration, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Defense Department and-- believe it or not--the Peace Corps. It also will plug into state Medicaid databases. So what does the hub want to include in all of this? Well, the article goes on to say that the hub will store ``names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, e-mail addresses, phone numbers on millions of people expected to apply for coverage via ObamaCare exchanges.'' That is just part of it. They are also going to have ``tax return information from the IRS, income information from Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources.'' The article says Washington ``will also store data from businesses buying coverage via an exchange, including a `list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers,' and keep it all on file for 10 years.'' In addition, the article goes on to say: The Federal Government also can disclose this information-- We are talking about citizens' private information turned over to the government, and the government ``can disclose this information `without the consent of the individual.' '' They ``can disclose this information `without the consent of the individual' to a wide range of people, including `agency contractors, consultants, or grantees' who `need to have access to the records' to help run ObamaCare.'' So all of this personal, private information is collected in one place, held for 10 years, and made available to bureaucrats, contractors, and consultants. This is just another terrible effect of the Democrats' health care law. This is a law that American people are just starting to learn more about, and a law that many of those who voted for it didn't even know what was in it. The more people learn, the more worried they become about how this law will affect their care, their jobs, their paychecks, and their privacy. When Democrats in Washington pushed their health care law through Congress, they were not honest with the American people about any of these negative effects. The American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 50th anniversary of the 90th Missile Wing stationed at Frances E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY. For the past half century, the dedicated men and women of the 90th Missile Wing have served with unwavering dedication to the security of our Nation. Known to their fellow airmen as the ``Mighty Ninety,'' this wing, with its five groups, displays excellence and commitment to the mission. On July 1, 1963, the 90th Strategic Wing came into existence amid growing tensions with the Soviet Union. Protecting our national security throughout the Cold War and into present day, the 90th Missile Wing provides our Nation's best, most reliable, most accurate strategic deterrent. Tasked with deterring an attack, the missile wing has worked extensively with the Minuteman I and Minuteman III systems, as well as encompassing the full lifecycle of the Peacekeeper Missile. Today, these men and women maintain and protect our Minuteman III resources 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--truly placing service to our country above all else. The 90th Missile Wing has been named the best Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Wing the past 2 years, earning the Blanchard Trophy in 2011 from U.S. Strategic Command and the Williams Trophy in 2010 and 2012 from Air Force Global Strike Command. The men and women who serve in the Mighty Ninety are second to none. Airmen from the 90th have gone on to serve our Nation in the Pentagon and international conflict zones. Additionally, just this month, the wing was turned over to its first female commander, Col. Tracey Hayes. Colonel Hayes has committed to continuing the standard of excellence. At this very moment, there are crewmen out in the missile fields, security teams on patrol, and support personnel of the 90th Missile Wing standing watch, ready to execute. They focus exclusively on their mission to ``provide preeminent combat capability across the spectrum of conflict.'' The Mighty Ninety continue to be an integral part of America's national defense. Congratulations and a profound thank you to the members of the 90th Missile Wing and their families.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today President Obama is supposed to unveil a national energy tax that will discourage job creation and increase energy bills for America's families. This announcement about existing powerplants comes after the Obama administration has already moved forward with excessive redtape that makes it harder and more expensive for America to produce energy. It also comes as a complete surprise to the Members of the Senate, especially since Gina McCarthy-- the President's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency-- just told Congress it wasn't going to happen. She is currently the Assistant Administrator of the EPA. Here is what she told the Senate about regulations on existing powerplants: EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power plants. As a result, she said: We have performed no analysis that would identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source program. With today's announcement by President Obama about existing powerplants, it is clear Gina McCarthy is either arrogant or ignorant. She either didn't tell the truth to the Senate or she doesn't know what is going on within her own agency. Either way, such a person cannot lead the EPA. To the point that this morning's National Journal Daily--with a picture of her right there on the front page--says: ``Obama's efforts could make EPA nominee Gina McCarthy's confirmation more difficult.'' In this economy, the last thing we need to do is have a national energy tax that will discourage hiring and make energy even more expensive. Also, I might point out to the White House that they continue to say the main objective of the President's plan today is to ``lead the rest of the world.'' Based on the news of the last week, it is clear that the rest of the world, including China and Russia, isn't following President Obama's direction or his leadership. Nuclear Weapons That brings me to my next topic. Last week, President Obama gave a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. In that speech, he said he plans to cut the number of America's deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third. This would be a drastic cut and would be on top of the drastic cuts in the New START arms control treaty from less than 2 years ago. President Obama's latest defense cuts are shortsighted and his approach to making this important announcement has been far too hasty. First of all, in the President's speech, he repeated what has been sort of a mantra for people who want to eliminate all nuclear weapons. He said: ``So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.'' In 1987, President Ronald Reagan went to the same spot at the Brandenburg Gate in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. He gave a speech in which he urged the leader of the Soviet Union to ``tear down this wall.'' In that speech, President Reagan also said freedom and security go together. In contrast to President Obama's idealism, President Reagan grounded his beliefs in history and in facts. We have experienced a world without nuclear weapons. Great powers went to war with each other repeatedly, which caused unthinkable amounts of death and suffering. The estimated number of dead from World War II generally ranges from 45 to 60 million. We haven't had a war with that kind of global death toll since then. Nuclear weapons and their deterrence power are a critical reason for that. Ronald Reagan knew America's nuclear deterrent helped keep Americans safe and helped keep our country free. I think it is important we recognize that essential truth. President Obama seems to base his plan to cut America's defenses on this false notion that we are safer without nuclear weapons. This is a serious problem. Second, I think it is important to recognize that a vital part of the deterrent is what is called the nuclear triad. This is the idea that we, as the United States, have three ways we can defend America. We have nuclear weapons on bombers that can be flown to where they are needed, we have nuclear weapons that can be launched from the ballistic missile submarines that are stationed around the world, and we have nuclear weapons in the ground that can launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. All of these have different uses and together they have a flexible, survivable, and stable nuclear deterrent. The triad ensures other major powers are never tempted to go too far and threaten America's security or that of our allies. So the second thread of President Obama's plan is that it could require substantial cuts to the ICBM force across the country, which means a weaker triad, a weaker deterrent, and a weaker defense. The Secretary of Defense gave a speech the other day too. He committed to actually keeping the triad of air, sea, and land-based deterrents. If the President is serious about protecting Americans and our allies, he should immediately announce he agrees with what his Defense Secretary said the other day. The President needs to reassure the American people that he will take no steps that could weaken the triad or any parts of it. The question is, Why now? The Senate just ratified a new START about a year and a half ago. That treaty set new levels for nuclear weapons and for delivery vehicles, but we haven't had time to even implement those new levels and the President goes and makes this next statement. Why the big rush to say those levels are all wrong and we need to cut even more nuclear weapons? In 2010, the Senate held hearings about New START. The head of the U.S. Strategic Command at the time was General Chilton. He was asked if the treaty allowed the United States ``to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is more than is needed to guarantee an adequate deterrent.'' General Chilton said: I do not agree that it is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. A former Secretary of Defense testified at the same hearing, James Schlesinger. He said the strategic nuclear weapons allowed under New START are adequate, though barely so. What has changed from the testimony in 2010 or since the Senate ratified the treaty at the end of 2011? The level was barely adequate a couple of years ago. It was exactly what was needed then. So how can we now cut another 33 percent off that level? That is what the President is proposing. The only thing that has changed since then--it seems to me--the threat of hostile nuclear programs has become even greater. As countries that are not our friends grow closer to modernizing their nuclear weapon program, it would be irresponsible for us to weaken our own program. We haven't even had a chance to confirm that Russia is complying with its obligations under New START. Russia has a long history of not complying with treaties. President Obama set out to reset relations between our two countries. There is no evidence that anything has changed. Even the Washington Post admitted the failure of the so-called reset. They ran an editorial last week with the title ``A starry-eyed view of Putin.'' It said: In touring Europe this week, President Obama has portrayed Russia's Vladmir Putin as a ruler with whom he can build a constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mind-set. They go on to say: It's a blinkered view that willfully ignores the Russian President's behavior--willfully ignores the Russian President's behavior. The Washington Post got it right. Finally, the President seemed to be laying the groundwork in his speech for a new round of cuts he could do unilaterally. That would be a mistake. Any further reductions in America's nuclear defenses should be done through a negotiated treaty with Russia. That means a thorough process open to the scrutiny of the American people and subject to full consideration by this body. New START included a resolution of ratification that specifically says future nuclear arms cuts can be made only--only--through a treaty. Arms control advocates pushing President Obama to make more cuts know that negotiating in public is difficult. They would prefer to strike backroom deals. That is not the political system our Framers designed. They specifically require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties. Such important decisions should not rest in the hands of the President alone or with his selected advisers. Under the President's plan, he would cut our nuclear defenses 55 percent. Russia continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal. China is expanding its nuclear stockpile. Iran is accelerating its nuclear efforts. North Korea continues its nuclear threats. We already have the New START Treaty. It would be irresponsible to move forward with these sorts of cuts the President is talking about without extensive discussion with the American people and Congress. The world remains a very dangerous place. Instead of drastically weakening America's defenses, the President should focus on stopping countries such as Iran and North Korea from expanding their nuclear programs. America can't afford to lose the full deterrent effect of a strong nuclear defense. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week President Obama and his allies are launching a big summer push to convince people that his health care law will not be a train wreck. We have heard in the Senate from one of the authors of the health care law that he saw a train wreck coming, so now what we see is the Obama administration trying to actually sell the bill--not that it is good or bad, just trying to sell it in any way they can to make the American people think about it in ways that may change their minds. The American people know this is a health care law that is not really doing what they want. What they are looking for is the ability to get the care they need from a doctor they want at a lower cost. That is far from anything the American people are going to see. What we see today in Politico is the headline: ``Selling of ObamaCare Officially Begins,'' selling of the law that was passed. Not something that is good, just trying to sell the law itself. The Washington Post this morning, ``Push is on to promote health law.'' The push isn't on to promote better care, not more affordable care; no, just to promote the law. I believe it is going to be a tough sell. A new poll out earlier this month showed that only 37 percent of Americans think the health care law is a good idea. That is even fewer people than think it was a good idea when the law was passed 3 years ago. Remember, the Democrats promised the American people that, well, the law would be actually overwhelmingly popular by now. That is nothing further from the truth because this law is more unpopular now than when it was passed. We see the President of the United States pulling out all the stops trying to sell this horribly written law. This is a law that is bad for patients. It is bad for providers, nurses, and doctors who take care of those patients, and it is going to be bad for the American taxpayers. What the President is doing is joined by a new interest group, and the group is called Enroll America. This is a group, and who is running it? Former Obama administration officials who moved from the White House to this group to try to sell this health care law. This is the group, part of what we have known as the Sebelius shakedown, the effort on the part of the Secretary of Health and Human Services who was asking health care businesses to donate to this organization. This group has started rolling out a PR campaign to try to convince people to sign up for insurance under the President's health care law. I agree more people need insurance, but we have to make sure the people not just have insurance but get good care. This is what this is supposed to be all about. The President keeps talking about more coverage. What we need is care for people, not just more coverage. Take a look at that and say: Is it actually going to work? According to the article in this morning's Washington Post, the President of this group, Enroll America, a former White House staffer, said yesterday in a telephone interview: The group's research shows that 78 percent of uninsured people don't know about the changes coming in January. You have to say: What kind of insurance are people going to be able to sign up for? What are they going to get to choose from? What choices will they have? What will they find in the exchange? By the way, the exchanges are running way behind time. This was a front-page story in one of the national papers today. First of all, for a lot of people in terms of trying to sign up on the exchanges, what they are going to find is it is going to be a lot more expensive than it would have been for them if this health care law had never passed in the first place. Remember, the President said that policies would actually be $2,500 cheaper by the end of his first term. Now we are seeing policies actually a lot more expensive, not just by what the President promised but even more expensive than what they would have been had the law never passed in the first place. Here is an editorial from the Racine, WI, Journal Times. This is how they put it the other day. They wrote: Despite assurances from Democrats that the national health care plan will drive down health care costs-- The President's promise-- the evidence is increasingly telling the opposite tale. This is Wisconsin. I mean, this is a State which has just recently elected a Democrat to the Senate, a State that went for the President. Here is another headline that Enroll America will not be talking about when they try to cite the President's health care law. This is from the McClatchy news on Tuesday. The article is titled ``Obamacare's big question: What's it going to cost me?'' That is what people want. That is what they want to know. That is why folks were interested in the health care law in the first place: they were paying too much for health care and they needed and looked for care that was actually more affordable for them, right for them. The writer from McClatchy, under this headline, ``Obamacare's big question: What's it going to cost me?'' writes: ``Early rate proposals around the country,'' around the country, ``are a mix of steep hikes and modest increases.'' Either way, insurance rates are going up everywhere; it is just a question of how fast and how high. So there is no surprise that the people across the country are disappointed and believe they have been misled by the President when he said rates will actually go down by $2,500 a family. When we look at the States that have been putting out their numbers for next year, for a lot of people the answer to the question of what is going to happen to rates is they are going up very fast and very high. In Ohio, the average individual market health insurance premium next year will be 88 percent higher than this year. That is according to the State insurance department. That is the State's official numbers. In California, for a typical 40-year-old man who doesn't smoke, rates in an insurance exchange will increase by 116 percent next year. The McClatchy article also quotes one health care expert saying that under the President's health care law there are winners and there are losers. I agree; that is absolutely right. There are winners and there are losers. We will talk about some of them this morning. The problem is the President and Democrats in Congress who pushed this health care act into law never said, never admitted to the American people that they were going to be losers. Enroll America is telling everybody to sign up for health insurance, but they aren't admitting that the law picked who wins and who loses. Let's take a look at that. It is another important point in this health care law, what is going to happen and what this new insurance is going to look like. It is going to be loaded onto the backs of young people. Under the law, many young people, many young, healthy people will have to pay a lot more for each older, sicker person who will pay less. For the President's scheme to work, these young healthy people will have to buy high-priced, government-mandated insurance they may not need, they may not want, and that may not be right for them. Here is another point about what Enroll America is telling people and what it is not telling people about the new Washington-mandated insurance. This group put up a blog post recently talking about ways States can maximize their Medicaid enrollment. This is one of the strategies Enroll America is pushing: get people signed up for Medicaid. A Medicaid card doesn't ensure patients actually get access to quality medical care for themselves or their families. According to one survey, one-third of physicians nationwide are unwilling to accept new Medicaid patients. Other studies have concluded that some patients in the Medicaid system do worse in terms of health care than people who have no insurance at all. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the health care law will put another 13 million people into the broken and failing Medicaid Program. Even with the enormous expansion of Medicaid, even after a Washington mandate that everybody in America must purchase health insurance, and even after Enroll America's big push to sign up more people, the Congressional Budget Office, the people who research this, who study this, say the number of uninsured Americans will never fall below 31 million. It will not fall below 31 million people even over the next decade. In spite of all of this revamping of a health care system, significant changes--much to the detriment of the American people because the President was focused on coverage--he is still leaving 31 million people uncovered and others paying much more. There are winners and losers, lots of losers. This law will cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade according to the CBO. It still fails to help millions and millions and millions of Americans. Then the question is who is actually being helped by the law because, as I said, there are going to be winners and losers. The Wall Street Journal, just the other day, page B1, Monday, June 17, ``Wanted: Health-Care Legal Experts.'' Legal experts. The lawyers are turning out to be winners under the health care law--not the patients, not the providers, not the taxpayers, the lawyers. The article says: Some companies are warning that President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul will cost jobs. It won't be in their legal departments. The article continues: Health-care companies racing to go comply with the Affordable Care Act and other rules are calling in the lawyers, sparking a mini-boom for specialist attorneys who can backstop overloaded internal teams and steer clients through an increasingly crowded regulatory minefield. The point of the health care reform should be to help the American people, not just to create more jobs for lawyers. The point should be to increase access to care for people, not just to send them Medicaid cards and tell them they are covered. The point of reform should be to help people get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. President Obama doesn't want to talk about the ways his health care law picks winners and losers. He doesn't want to talk about the many losers under his plan. Enroll America doesn't want to level with the American people to tell them the health insurance they get under the President's law might not be what is best for them. If we are going to truly reform our health care system in this country, the President and his allies should start by telling the American people how his law falls short. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, it is my pleasure to honor the residents of Hot Springs County, WY as they celebrate their centennial. Located in northern Wyoming, and nestled in the Big Horn Basin, Hot Springs County is an incredible place to live and work. Nearly 5,000 residents reside in the communities of Kirby, East Thermopolis, and Thermopolis, the county seat. The county boasts a wide range of recreational opportunities, and its residents share the beauty of the Big Horn River, the Owl Creek Mountains, and the Wind River Canyon with visitors from around the country. Hot Springs County has a storied past and a promising future. The county is aptly named for the natural mineral hot springs in the area. For thousands of years, Big Spring has produced millions of gallons of mineral water at a constant temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Northern Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone Native Americans relied on the spiritual and physical healing powers of the hot springs years before the first settlers arrived. In 1896, under the guidance of Chief Washakie, the tribal leaders transferred ownership of the land surrounding the springs to the U.S. Government. The treaty opened the natural beauty of the area to the public to be enjoyed in perpetuity. Today, this historic treaty is celebrated every August with the Gift of the Waters Pageant. This celebration recreates the treaty ceremony of 1896 and is a truly special attraction. In the past 100 years, Hot Springs County has benefitted from a variety of industries and has enjoyed great economic success. The county played a key role in supplying oil to support the war effort during World War II. The communities of Grass Creek and Hamilton Dome were especially efficient producers of oil during this period. In addition, a portion of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad travels through the county. The Railroad connects the State to important supplies and goods from around the country. Tourism is arguably the county's most successful industry. In Thermopolis, Hot Springs State Park attracts thousands of guests every year. Created from the land purchased in the Treaty of 1896, the Park provides year-round recreation opportunities, including hiking, picnicking, and soaking in the world-famous hot springs. Just 20 miles away, folks can visit the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site, which is home to some to the best-preserved examples of Dinwoody rock art in the world. The Wyoming Dinosaur Center celebrates Wyoming's incredibly rich natural history. It is one of the few centers in the world that has an active excavation site within driving distance. Visitors can see active dig sites, explore modern preparation laboratories, and admire dozens of fossilized dinosaurs and specimens. Folks in the county have done an incredible job of preserving the county's rich history and sharing with its visitors. Hot Springs County is a very special place to all of us in Wyoming. In addition to being the hometown of my wife, Bobbi Brown Barrasso, Thermopolis is also the hometown of former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. The fine folks of the county are incredible leaders and greatly contribute to the success of the entire State. It is an honor to recognize the residents of Hot Springs County as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. This year, the Hot Springs County Centennial Committee has planned a countywide celebration on June 22nd to commemorate this milestone. I invite my colleagues to visit the communities of Hot Springs County. The county's rich heritage, geological wonders, and genuine cowboy hospitality provide a truly wonderful experience to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the advice and consent duties of the Senate. Our Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise the President on high-level executive positions and judgeships. The Senate is also asked to consent on those appointments to ensure that only those who are worthy of the public's trust hold positions of such great power. The confirmation process is a way to protect the American people from nominees who simply aren't up to the job or to the times we are in as a country. It is also an important opportunity for the Senate to exercise oversight over the agencies and the policies of an administration and to do this on behalf of the American people. Let me repeat that. It is about exercising oversight on behalf of the American people. This is one of the most important roles we play as Senators. This is one of the reasons our Nation's Founding Fathers intentionally made the pace of the Senate deliberate. They wanted to make sure there was free debate on important subjects so we could give appropriate consideration to policies, to laws, and to nominations. The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, explained the Senate's role was ``first to protect the people against their rulers.'' ``First to protect the people against their rulers'' was the point of this body. That is why, over its long history, the Senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections for political minorities. Lately some in the majority have decided the American people shouldn't ask so many questions and the minority shouldn't have so many rights. Here is a little perspective on the conversation we are having today. Over the last 6 years Majority Leader Reid has taken an unprecedented stand against the rights of the minority in this body. He has done it through procedural tactics such as filling the amendment tree on bills and bypassing committees using something called rule XIV of the Senate rules. Those techniques may make it easier for the majority leader to get what he wants, but they shut many Senators out of legislating, and they shut out the Americans we represent, Democrats as well as Republicans. At the beginning of the last Congress and again at the start of this Congress, there was an attempt to use the so-called nuclear option and to use it to radically change the rules of the Senate and to strip the rights of the minority. Back in 2011, Majority Leader Reid made a commitment not to use the nuclear option. On the floor he said: I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules, and I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate rules other than through the regular order. He said this Congress or the next Congress, so that includes the Congress we are in right now today. It didn't stop some of the members of his caucus from trying to force the nuclear option again earlier this year. I was one of a bipartisan group of Senators--eight of us--who worked together and negotiated, I thought, responsible changes to Senate procedures. Our goal was to avoid the rush that would take drastic steps that would damage this body and our country forever. It was a fair agreement. It was also an agreement that we were told would rule out the use of the nuclear option. So Republicans agreed to support two new standing orders and two new standing rules of the Senate. Those changes were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in this body. In return, the majority leader again gave his word he would not try to break the rules in order to change the rules. Here is what he said a few months ago on the Senate floor: ``Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process.'' He even added this included considerations by the Rules Committee. There was no equivocating in the statement by the Democratic leader. There were no ifs, ands, or buts. This was January 24 of this year. Here we are again, less than 5 months later, and we are having this same argument. Some Senate Democrats want to use the nuclear option to break the rules, to change the rules, and do away with the right to extended debate on nominations. This would be an unprecedented power grab by the majority. It would gut the advice and consent function of the Senate. It would trample the rights of the minority. It would deprive millions of Americans of their right to have their voices heard through their representatives here in Washington. The nuclear option would irreparably change this institution. Republicans have raised principled objections to a select few of the President's nominees. In other cases, such as the DC Circuit Court, we simply want to apply the standard the Democrats had set, that the court's workload doesn't justify the addition of three more judges. The President claims his nominees have been treated unfairly. Even the Washington Post's Fact Checker said the President's comments were untrue. The other day the Post Fact Checker gave the President not just one but two Pinocchios for his claims about Republican delays on his judicial nominees. The White House and the majority leader don't want to hear it. They want the Senate to rubberstamp the President's nominees. The Democrats aren't happy with the rulings by the DC Circuit Court, and they want to avoid any more inconvenient questions about the Obama administration. Democrats claim they want to change the rules to make things move more quickly, but that is no excuse. Remember when the majority leader threatened the same drastic step a couple of years ago? One of the Democrats who stood up to oppose the current majority leader at the time was former Senator Chris Dodd. In his farewell speech in this body in late 2010, this is what Senator Dodd had to say: I can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so unique--and, simultaneously, so frustrating. But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise. This was a Democratic Senator with 30 years of service in the Senate. The reality is the pace of the Senate can be deliberate. Extended debate and questioning of nominees is a vital tool to help ensure the men and women who run our government are up to the job and are held accountable. Under the system some in the majority want to impose, there will be less opportunity for political minorities to question nominees. There will be less government transparency. The faith of the American people in their government will get smaller and smaller. I believe it would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to pursue the nuclear option and an irresponsible abuse of power. From the beginning the American political system has functioned on majority rule but with strong minority rights. Democracy is not winner-take-all. Senator Reid gave his word. We negotiated in good faith earlier this year. We reached a bipartisan agreement to avoid the nuclear option. Using the nuclear option on nominations now would unfairly disregard that agreement. If Democrats break the rules to change the rules, political minorities and all Americans will lose. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, speak after me for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.