John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if I may join in this discussion--and it is wonderful to see the bipartisan nature of this discussion, to turn and look around the floor of this Chamber and see three Democratic Senators talking to this issue and three Republican Senators talking to the same issue and agreeing, because all of us are like-minded in the fact that when we think of energy--and the Keystone XL Pipeline is a big part of that--we think of energy security for our Nation, which is part of this, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. We just heard from one Alaskan Senator and the other Alaskan Senator will speak shortly. We hear what a wonderful job people continue to do in one of the most pristine areas of the country, the State of Alaska. I will tell my colleagues, as a Senator from Wyoming, an energy capital of this Nation, that energy is a big part of our economy but so is tourism. If we did things that did not focus on environmental stewardship for our own State, it would impact our tourism. Energy is a big part of the economy, so we want to have economic growth, energy security, as well as environmental stewardship. But I will tell my colleagues it has been a difficult task based on some of the regulatory obstacles to energy development. The President likes to talk about how he supports all-of-the-above American energy development. But, in fact, we heard him the other night during the State of the Union Address. His actions over the past 4 years tell a completely different story. Instead of making it easier for our own country to produce energy, I believe he has made it harder. If we look at the folks who are leaving his administration: The EPA's Director, Lisa Jackson, she said the EPA's role is, interestingly, ``to level the playing field against fossil fuels.'' Secretary Chu, who is leaving the administration, said he would ``boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Secretary Salazar, who is leaving, continues to talk about the fact that the energy strategy, he says, showed good results, but they have restricted access to Federal offshore and onshore oil and gas resources through moratoriums, through blocking permits, through leasing plans. They have denied Americans billions in public revenue and thousands of jobs. I stand here saying that the Keystone XL Pipeline is a perfect example of the Obama administration's pattern of delaying good projects by requiring excessive redtape. So I come here with the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska--and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership, for his determination, for his courage, and for his fortitude--in fighting to make sure we as a country continue to strive for American energy security. That is exactly what we are going to have with this proposal. I call on the administration today--the President, as well as the new Secretary of State--to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to allow that energy--which is either coming here to the United States or going to China or elsewhere--to approve it to come to the United States, to help our production, to help our consumers, to help our jobs in this country. Those are the things that are important as we try to focus on energy security for our Nation, economic growth for our Nation, as well as environmental stewardship. So I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership. I see now the ranking member of the Energy Committee is here with us as well, who has done a masterful job with a visioned ``Energy 20/20.'' For people who have not seen it, I would say they are missing something--if they have not really read through it--from the Senator from Alaska because she has focused like a laser on these three E's of energy security, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. So I thank both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, for their leadership.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a conference of the Wyoming American Legion. Many of the veterans I spoke with remain very concerned about their health care and specifically about the impacts of the Obama health care law on their lives and on their health. The men and women whom I met with are very worried they may lose their health coverage. Why? Because of the law. They wonder what happened to the insurance premium cuts they were supposed to have gotten by now--not in the future but promised to have gotten by now. These men and women have not gotten many of the benefits they were told to expect, but what they are getting are all the costs. That is why the people I talk with every weekend at home in Wyoming understand what the Democrats in Washington still will not admit: that the President's health care law remains unworkable, unpopular, and absolutely unaffordable. Remember when the President promised that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? Well, all of America now knows it was an empty promise, just as when President Obama promised health insurance premiums would go down. Over and over, the President said that his law would lower premiums by $2,500 a family by the end of his first term in office. The President has not talked much about that lately. I did not hear anything about it in his inaugural address, and I do not expect to hear very much about it in his State of the Union Address. It is because average premiums across the country for families have not gone down--not by the $2,500 that the President promised, not by even $1,000, not even by a cent. Instead, average family premiums have actually gone up by more than $3,000 during the President's first term. That is a pretty big math error on the part of President Obama, and the American people, unfortunately, are the ones who have to pay for his mistake. Because of his policies, health insurance is a lot less affordable for a lot of people and for a lot of small businesses. Now many small businesses are facing what is turning out to be an impossible decision. If they expand their business and cross the law's threshold of 50 employees, they will be subject to the employer insurance mandate. If they choose not to expand, then they are holding back potential growth and the opportunities that come with it. In this current economic environment, the last thing we should be doing is making it more difficult for businesses to expand and hire more people. But because of the President's health care law, that is exactly what is happening. The Wall Street Journal ran a piece recently about a small business owner named Carl Schanstra. He owns a parts assembly factory near Chicago, IL. It is called Automation Systems LLC. Sales have been growing, and the business is doing well, but he has a problem because he already employs close to 50 people. That means he is getting dangerously close to the law's threshold and the new health care burdens it would place on him, including all the expenses. As he puts it, he says: ``I'll be hammered for having more people at work.'' The cost of providing insurance would be enormous. The cost of paying the tax penalty for not offering insurance would also be enormous. That is not a good option for a small business such as Automation Systems--a small business that wants to expand, a small business that has an opportunity to expand and hire more people. So he has to look for ways to stay under the law's limits. He plans to raise prices to give himself a buffer against the new health care law, and he may even have to break his company into two different companies so they can stay below the limits. He may avoid hiring more people or buy more machinery to replace some of the workers. A rational and responsible business owner wants to make decisions based on what is best for the business and its employees. Now we have business owners having to make these decisions based on the crushing regulatory burden imposed upon them by Washington. Carl is not the only business owner who is having to face tough choices because of the health care law. According to a new survey Gallup put out last week, more than half of small business owners say health care costs and taxes are hurting them a lot. Those two things-- health care costs and taxes--led the list of their concerns by a wide margin. When Gallup looked specifically at businesses that were not hiring, 61 percent of them--nearly two out of every three--said it was because of the potential cost of health care. Washington should be creating policies that encourage businesses to hire and making hiring easier. Again, that is what our economy needs to recover. Instead, this administration has been piling up more costs, more regulations, and more ways to discourage hiring. That is one person's story. But just down the road from where Carl is trying to do what is best for his business and his workers, the city of Chicago itself is facing some of the same concerns. Chicago has decided it cannot afford to pay the health care costs of its retired city workers. So what is the whole city of Chicago going to do? Well, it is looking at dumping those former workers into the ObamaCare exchange. It would save the city a lot of money, but the taxpayers of Illinois and every other State would have to make up the tab because the city is trying to skip out on paying their own bill. Federal subsidies for Chicago retirees would be $44 million in 2014, and that amount would only grow over time. Of course, we know the mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel. He was one of the main figures in the room where ObamaCare was being written, and we all know--all of America knows--that room was behind closed doors. He knew exactly the kinds of incentives the law was creating. He also knew exactly how many people would be affected. And he knew how people such as him could use the law to push health care costs onto someone else. Chicago takes that step today. Other cities might be right behind and waiting to do the same thing tomorrow and the day after that, and so on. We need to reduce health care costs in America. But all we do and all we see is cost-shifting, robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need businesses to hire people so our economy can grow. Those businesses are holding back because of the health care law. We need to reduce Washington's out-of-control spending. But cities such as Chicago are trying to shift their health care costs to hard-working taxpayers elsewhere. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate and the White House refuse to accept that we have any problem at all with entitlement spending and the budget deficits we are looking at. It is time for Democrats to take their head out of the sand, to admit that the President's health care law did not solve our problems; in fact, it made things worse. Then I picked up the paper this morning--today's Wall Street Journal--and a front-page headline is: ``Some Unions Grow Wary Of Health Law They Backed.'' We all remember the days when unions lobbied for this health care law. Their Web sites said: We need this health care law now. They came to Capitol Hill, lobbying here, members having rallies. Well, let me read some of the beginning of the article that is on the front page of today's paper. Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour. Union leaders say many of the law's requirements-- Many of the law's requirements-- will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. So there we have it. We have what happens to a small business, why the health care law is hurting it. We see how the city of Chicago is responding to the perverse incentives in the health care law to force its costs onto other hard-working taxpayers, and now we see the very unions that supported the health care law during the lobbying phase and during the time of the vote now saying the law's requirements are going to drive up the cost for their health care plans. It just seems it is time for people on Capitol Hill to realize how bad this health care law is. We need real entitlement reform that preserves vital safety net programs for future generations. We need real health care reform that gives people the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. President Obama continues to give the American people and give all of us empty promises. Congress should give hard-working American taxpayers the solutions they expect and they deserve. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I agree completely with my colleague, who has really shown significant leadership in this area, worked closely on it. He has been a Governor for two terms, knows about appointments, knows about advice and consent. What we have seen from this President of the United States, just last January, is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and the laws of this land by bypassing the Senate and appointing three members to the National Labor Relations Board, claiming--claiming--the Senate was in recess, even though the Senate was meeting regularly in pro forma sessions. So last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously--unanimously--that those unilateral appointments were unconstitutional. It is interesting because I saw the whip of the Senate Democrats on one of the television shows this weekend, and he said: Well, we need to make sure people have plenty of time for hearings. They did not have hearings. Madam President, the Democrats are in control of the Senate. They could have called hearings but chose not to. The President let these vacancies sit for long periods of time, and only in the middle of December of 2011 did he even put names up and then summarily, just a few weeks later, went and unilaterally appointed them. The Senate was really never consulted. The Senate did not have an opportunity to advise and consent. That is why I use the word ``flagrant'' in terms of the President's bypassing of the Senate in making these alleged recess appointments. Well, over the weekend, newspapers across this country reported on this consequential ruling by the court and what it will mean for the administration going forward. The Wall Street Journal called it ``Obama's Abuse of Power''--abuse-- abuse of power. Politico said: ``President Obama's Recess Appointment Bet Sours.'' Investor's Business Daily reported: ``Court Finally Reins in Obama's Imperial Presidency.'' The Washington Post explained: ``Court Says Obama Exceeded Authority in Making Appointments.'' The Los Angeles Times reported: ``Court Rules Obama's Recess [Appointments] Are Illegal''--illegal. After we go on reading through all of this, after this court ruling, the White House should finally realize--finally realize--that the President's power to use recess appointments is not unlimited. The court's decision reaffirms that America's Founding Fathers provided the Senate--the Senate--a responsibility, a duty to advise and consent, and they did it with the strong, coequal responsibility on important nominations. Well, let's take a look at what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia actually ruled when they talked about the President's so-called recess appointments. The court said: An interpretation of ``the Recess'' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish-- ``Demolish,'' the court said-- the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. The court went on to say: ``This cannot be the law.'' I agree completely with the court, which is why I am here on the floor of the Senate with my colleagues. Senator Johanns, also a former Governor, is with us today. These are individuals who understand the importance of advice and consent. And again, as to Senator Johanns, he has been a Cabinet member. He has been subjected to the process of advice and consent, and he knows how important that is in the balance of power, in how Washington and our Nation are supposed to work by the Constitution. As the court wrote, ``Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers.'' The court added, ``It would make little sense to extend [the recess appointment authority] to any intrasession break'' because the ability to make recess appointments would swallow the advice-and-consent role of the Senate. Because of the President's illegitimate appointments, the NLRB is now operating under a cloud of uncertainty all across the country in all of their regulations and rules. That is why shortly after the appointments, the President's appointees to the NLRB--Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin--began issuing orders and opinions in labor disputes. So they have been doing that now for over a year. All of those decisions that the Board issued by a quorum made up by those members--there were over 200 of those rulings coming out in the past year--are subject to challenge and to invalidation. We have heard from Senator Alexander on one of those having to do with micro unions. Another had to do with collection of union dues even after the contracts had expired. On and on and on, numbers of rulings, over 200 have been made. They are all subject to challenge and invalidation because there was no legitimate quorum for the National Labor Relations Board. At this moment it is practically impossible for anyone to know which NLRB decisions are valid and which are not. It is my opinion that none of them should be valid. But it is time to stop this regulatory train wreck from getting any worse. That is why this week I am introducing a bill that will freeze any decisions, any regulations, any rulings made by this unconstitutionally appointed and invalid quorum of the National Labor Relations Board. Until we have final resolution from the courts, the NLRB should not be able to move forward and create even more uncertainty across this country. We would not be in this position if the President of the United States had done what legally he is mandated to do, which is work with Congress and follow the Constitution. I hope that court ruling serves as a wakeup call for President Obama and for his entire administration. Instead of going around Congress, instead of going around the Constitution, it is time for the Obama administration to work with us on nominations. I see the Senator from Nebraska is here, the former Governor, former Cabinet member. I look forward to hearing his comments as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, 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 period of morning business be extended until 3:30 p.m. today, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to, No. 1, welcome you and welcome all of the other new Senators who have just joined this historic body. Along with the rest of us, you have all watched the difficult negotiations over the fiscal cliff that dominated the last few weeks of the 112th Congress. That debate was an important opportunity to talk to the American people about Washington's addiction to spending. We made clear in that debate that no amount of tax increases--no amount--would come close to wiping out Washington's debt. So as we begin the 113th Congress, we are faced with fresh opportunities to continue that conversation with the American people. This time the debate is over whether to raise the Nation's debt limit. Last week, the President opened negotiations on this important issue by saying that he wouldn't negotiate. He did not announce this by calling the Republicans in Congress; he did it, instead, by calling a press conference. In the last days of 2012, President Obama, in my opinion, failed to lead in the talks over avoiding the fiscal cliff. Now the President plans not to lead on the Nation's debt limit either. Whether the President leads, follows, or just gets out of the way, Washington needs real budget reform. We can't continue President Obama's pattern of untold trillions of dollars in wasteful government spending. Over the past 4 years, President Obama has added so much to our national debt that he has already had to increase our Nation's debt limit four separate times. This includes the two largest increases in our history. No other President of the United States has needed an increase of over $1 trillion. President Obama has asked for that much twice. While he once promised to cut the deficit in half by now, he has done just the opposite. He has added as much debt in 4 years as all the previous Presidents racked up in our country's first 225 years. President Obama has maxed out the national credit card and now he wants a new one. In return, the President isn't willing to offer any commitments that he will try to be more responsible with that next credit card. In fact, under his latest budget, the President wants to add another $6.4 trillion to our debt over the next 5 years. That is the wrong direction for our Federal budget and for the Nation's future. The President could take this opportunity to reassure hardworking American taxpayers, as well as world financial markets, that he is finally serious about reining in Washington's out-of-control spending. Instead, he has chosen to try to score political points. This isn't the first time the President has voiced an opinion on the debt limit debate. Last December, he spoke on this subject as he, in my opinion, misrepresented decades of precedence regarding congressional consideration of the debt limit. He said that connecting debt ceiling votes and budget negotiations--connecting debt ceiling votes and budget negotiations--was something that ``we had never done in our history until we did it last year.'' That statement is false. Frankly, we should be talking about responsible spending reform every time we debate any measure in Congress that involves spending money. We should certainly do it when we are debating borrowing more money. The debt limit has been used at least 20 times in the past 60 years specifically tied to debating fiscal reform. For example, in 1954, Congress passed a temporary increase specifically as a way to control future finances. In 1967, the House actually defeated a debt limit increase so that it could force President Johnson to quit using some of the budget tricks he had been using. In 1970, the debate over the debt limit included amendments to cut defense spending, imposing a spending cap, and freezing congressional pay until Congress passed a balanced budget. In 1983, Congress actually defeated a debt limit increase bill. Senator Russell Long, a Democrat, told his colleagues if they voted for the increase, ``you are voting to continue the biggest deficits in the history of this country as far as the eye can see.'' Incidentally, the debt at that time was $1.3 trillion. That is about how much we have added to our debt every year since President Obama was sworn in for the first time. Democrats balked at Washington having a debt over $1.3 trillion back then. Today, the President says Republicans are doing something irresponsible for even wanting to talk about a debt of more than $16.4 trillion. I could go on and on with more examples, but I think you have the idea. The President says it is unprecedented for us to even ask to have this debate. Well, the President is not correct. It is not unprecedented. It is actually very common and absolutely appropriate. There is nobody on the Republican side of the aisle here in the Senate who is saying we should not pay our bills. There is also nobody on this side of the aisle who thinks we should keep wasting taxpayer dollars without even trying to act responsibly and slow down Washington's spending. Yes, the debt limit is about paying for past obligations, but our history shows the debate over the debt limit is an absolutely appropriate time to talk about reforming Washington's future spending. President Obama agreed to spending cuts the last time he asked for an increase in the debt limit. Now the President says he wants his credit limit increased without any effort to reduce future spending. And, of course, we all remember when he was a Senator he spoke out against raising the debt limit. He once called the need to increase the debt limit ``a failure of leadership.'' But that was then. This is now. The White House has floated gimmicks such as issuing a $1 trillion coin or using the 14th amendment to raise the debt limit without congressional approval. And now the President won't negotiate responsible spending at all. His policies--his policies of the past 4 years--have buried our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt. America needs real budget reform, but President Obama insists on playing politics with our country's credit rating. Hard-working American taxpayers have to balance their budgets. They understand what the President does not. The President bragged in his press conference last week that ``it's been a busy and productive 4 years, and I expect the same for the next 4 years.'' Well, it looks like he means we can count on 4 more years of wasteful Washington spending. This has to stop. It is time for President Obama to finally keep his promise to get America's finances in order. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I agree with the views expressed by my good friends from Arizona and Tennessee. They and I, and our Democratic colleagues, worked in good faith on the concepts embodied in the order the Senate has just adopted. I am hopeful that the majority will use the procedures in this order in harmony with our good intentions. If not, I will oppose cloture on legislation or nominations.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding orthopaedic surgeon, mentor and friend. Dr. Wayne Southwick has had a remarkable career. The author of over 100 peer reviewed journal articles, he has also received numerous awards for his work as a professor and chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale University's School of Medicine. I had the privilege of learning from Dr. Southwick during my time at Yale. Dr. Southwick's unending dedication to educating the next generation of physicians has had a lasting impact on the medical profession. Dr. Wayne Orin Southwick was born on February 6, 1923 in Lincoln, NE. He grew up in Friend, the same small town where his grandfather settled, just before Nebraska was admitted to the Union. Dr. Southwick attended high school in Friend, before entering the University of Nebraska, where he earned a B.A. in 1945 and an M.D. in 1947. During his time at the University of Nebraska, Dr. Southwick married the love of his life, Jessie Ann Seacrest. While the vast majority of my remarks will focus on Dr. Southwick's professional accomplishments, I know that what he is most proud of is his loving family. Together, Wayne and Ann raised three children, Fred, Steven and Marcia. Steven has followed in his father's footsteps as a physician and professor of psychiatry at Yale. Wayne would be the first person to admit that all of his accomplishments would not have been possible without the support of his wife and children. After graduation from medical school, the Southwick family moved to Boston, where Dr. Southwick completed an internship at Boston City Hospital and also served on the Harvard Surgical Service. He then began a residency in orthopaedic surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD. This experience was interrupted when Dr. Southwick joined the Navy to serve his country during the Korean War. He was assigned to both the hospital ship Repose and Bethesda Naval Hospital. His experience in the Navy cemented Dr. Southwick's commitment to public service and helping the less fortunate. Over the course of his career, he made repeated trips abroad to provide health care to people in underserved locations. Dr. Southwick returned to Johns Hopkins after leaving the Navy and completed his residency in 1955. He worked as an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins before he was appointed as the first full-time chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale in 1958. It is from this position that Dr. Southwick made a truly indelible mark. Known as an innovative and creative surgeon, Dr. Southwick made tremendous contributions to the practice of medicine. In particular, he received recognition for his surgical management of slipped femoral capital epiphysis and approaches to the cervical spine. His name can be found in the index of most modern day surgery textbooks. However, what he probably will be remembered for most is his leadership of Yale's orthopaedic surgery residency program. Over his tenure, nearly 100 residents completed orthopaedic surgery training at Yale. The program created by Dr. Southwick became a model for the rest of the Nation. Specifically, Dr. Southwick ensured that his program welcomed students from all backgrounds. For example, he accepted the first African American surgical resident, Dr. Augustus White, who went on to serve as the first African American department chief at Harvard's teaching hospitals. Dr. Southwick also recruited the first female African American orthopaedic surgery resident, Dr. Claudia Thomas, in 1975. The American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons recognized Dr. Southwick's commitment to diversity by awarding him AAOS's first Diversity Award in 2003. Dr. Terry Light, a former orthopaedic resident at Yale and president of the Academic Orthopaedic Society, described Dr. Southwick in this way, ``Dr. Southwick never saw himself as a champion of civil rights nor as one who was trying to do good. He simply and honestly did what he felt was fair.'' Dr. Southwick simply noted, ``I didn't take the approach that I was going to recruit a diverse group, rather I looked to gather an interesting, qualified group that would work well together. What I found was a highly capable group of people with diverse backgrounds.'' Dr. Southwick remained as chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale from 1958 until 1979. He left the faculty in 1993 and was appointed professor emeritus. Retirement allowed Dr. Southwick to concentrate on another passion of his life, sculpting. Some may see medicine and sculpture as unrelated endeavors, but Dr. Southwick understands that they have much in common. His thorough understanding of human anatomy allowed Dr. Southwick to create numerous works of art, many of which can be found on Yale's campus. Dr. Southwick will be celebrating his 90th birthday with many of the surgeons whom he has trained. I could not let this event pass without recognizing his many accomplishments and impact on my own life. Over the years I have been lucky to call Dr. Southwick my mentor, colleague and friend. I know the entire Senate joins with me in commending Dr. Southwick on his remarkable career and wishing him a very happy birthday.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, for the past several weeks I have come to the floor to talk about the fiscal cliff and the threat it poses to our economy and to our Nation. As the deadline nears, the fiscal cliff has caused a lot of concern and a lot of uncertainty around the country. It appears that too many people in Washington are not serious about real solutions to get us back on solid economic ground. The White House and Democrats in the Senate are still not focused on spending cuts. They continue ignoring the real drivers of Washington's debt. We know what they are. They are out-of-control entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Until we find a way to save and strengthen these programs, no amount of tax revenue will be able to match the increases in entitlement spending. According to the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, the problem is actually getting worse. In its monthly budget review for December, the Congressional Budget Office said the budget deficit for just the first 2 months of this fiscal year was already $292 billion. When we take a look at that and compare this pace, we will record our fifth straight year of a trillion-dollar deficit. In just October and November alone, which are the first 2 months of this fiscal year, we are already $300 billion in the red. Total outlays for those 2 months were $638 billion. That is an increase of almost 4 percent over the same period 1 year ago. This increase in spending is much faster than the growth we are seeing in our economy. Defense spending is actually down about 2 percent from the first 2 months of last year. That may be the lone bright spot in the CBO's number. The problem is entitlement spending is growing even faster than the rest of government. Social Security spending is up 6.8 percent. Medicare is up 8.1 percent. Medicaid is up over 9 percent compared to last year. Those are huge increases in just 1 year and they point straight to the problem we face. Those three programs by themselves account for 43 percent of all Washington spending for the first 2 months of this fiscal year. Some Democrats say we cannot take steps to save and to protect these important programs for future generations. They say we cannot even discuss fixing this out-of-control spending as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. That is unrealistic, and it is unsustainable. Without reform, we are facing the kinds of increases we see on this chart but getting worse next month and the month after that and then again beyond. Without reform, it will keep getting worse until we drive our economy into the ground just trying to pay for these programs. There is a potential solution, and one potential solution or at least something that would help would be to adjust how we calculate entitlement benefits for inflation. As it stands now, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates two different versions of what is called the Consumer Price Index. Both of these assume that a consumer buys a certain basket of goods and then they track the total cost of that basket. A family buys a certain amount of gasoline, so much milk, so many muffins to have for breakfast and so on. The first measure is called the CPI-U, and it is what we consider the headline measure. It is what we read in the papers. It looks like what all urban consumers spend on that market basket of goods. That is why they call it the CPI- U--U is for ``urban.'' It is a number we use to index the tax brackets for inflation. That is how we decide what those brackets will be. The second way they measure the CPI is called the CPI-W. That includes urban wage earners. The W is for ``wage earners,'' not all consumers. It also includes clerical workers and a few other professions. So it excludes anyone who is unemployed, retired, self- employed, and many other occupations. This is what the government uses for the cost-of-living adjustment to Federal benefits such as Social Security. So we have one that they use to calculate the CPI for tax purposes and the tax brackets and the other, different, is what they use for Social Security benefits. It is very complicated. Both these systems have several problems. They both overestimate inflation. First, they assume consumers purchase the exact same basket of goods regardless of what happens to prices. So if the price of something such as muffins goes up, the CPI does not account for some consumers who will switch to toast or having something else for breakfast. All American families understand that people change their behavior when prices change. Our understanding of inflation should take that into account. Another problem is that these versions of CPI cannot easily deal with the introduction of new products into the market. So how does something like the iPod affect consumer spending? How do we account for that, when the iPod was not in the market basket of goods before. At what point do we start including cell phone bills or Internet access into a family's monthly expenses? It is not happening now. So we have these two different ways to measure inflation. They both have multiple flaws. As I have said, the flaws tend to overestimate the inflation people actually experience when they go to the store and they pay their bills each month. We can see how this could be a problem over time. When the government increases what it pays based on an exaggerated inflation adjustment, the impact continues to accelerate. If we give someone an extra dollar to make up for inflation but their expenses only went up 75 cents, pretty soon all those quarters add up. It is bad fiscal policy and we actually cannot afford it anymore. The cost-of-living adjustment should track, as closely as possible, to the actual cost of living. To address those flaws, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done is actually come up with a new and an improved measure for inflation. It is called chained CPI, and it accounts for those changes in consumer choices and for new products and new technology. If we use this version of CPI to adjust Federal benefits and tax brackets, CBO estimates that we would actually reduce the deficit by $200 billion over the next 10 years--over $200 billion in the next 10 years. That is the benefit of not overcompensating for inflation. The savings would be small at first, but over time they would grow, until 10 years from now we would have saved more than $200 billion. The savings get even bigger beyond the 10 years shown here in the chart, and that is because of the impact of compounding. Now, with budget deficits of $1 trillion and more this year, last year, the year before, 5 years in a row, this one change to the inflation index--well, it won't wipe out the deficit on its own, but it is a start, and it is something we can do now that will pay big dividends down the road. Of course, this isn't the only option. There are other ways to slow the increase in Social Security and make sure it is still around to take care of seniors in the future. We need to do something. Setting the cost-of-living adjustment using chained CPI is worth considering. Now, even some Democrats have been open to this idea. According to Bob Woodward's book ``The Price of Politics,'' the White House was willing to look at changing the CPI as part of the so-called grand bargain last year. The Simpson-Bowles Commission included it as one of their solutions. The President himself reportedly had a version of chained CPI in his latest offer on the fiscal cliff. That is progress. It shows that some Democrats are open to serious ideas and real solutions. Because we need to do something to relieve the burden of Washington's crushing debt, this is something to consider. More revenue is going to have to be part of the solution, and Republicans have said so. Substantial cuts in spending must be part of the answer as well. Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. That problem is centered on entitlement programs that are growing far too quickly. Switching to the chained CPI is a reasonable first step that we could take now to start to rein in Washington's out-of-control spending, allowing us to save and protect Social Security and Medicare for generations to come. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend, Senator Akaka, in sponsoring the Department of the Interior Tribal Self- Governance Act of 2012. Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1975 to set forth a new dynamic in the Federal-tribal relationship. Since then, we have seen many benefits for Indian communities as a result of the Federal Indian policy of self- determination in general and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in particular. Indian self-determination is one of the most successful, if not the most successful, Federal Indian policies in the history of our country's relations with Indian Country. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was amended over 20 years ago to include the Self-Governance program. Self- Governance became a permanent program in the Department of the Interior in 1994, and it has been a resounding success. Now, as of 2012, hundreds of Indian tribes are participating in the Self-Governance program in one way or another. It comes as no surprise to me, that the Indian tribes can administer these programs on behalf of their own people far better than the Federal government could ever hope to administer them. Nevertheless, after some 18 years, the time has come for the self- governance program to be reviewed and improved. This bill is intended to provide ``key improvements to the way self-governance works in the Department of the Interior, improvements that have been studied, evaluated, discussed, and negotiated by the tribes and by the Department of the Interior. During the course of this Congress, some issues did arise relating to the self-governance program in Interior agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in particular the Bureau of Reclamation. Indian tribal leaders and Senate staff have worked for many months to resolve those issues, and their efforts in that regard are incorporated into this bill. I believe the bill goes a long way in dealing with those issues, and the program will be better off as a result of these efforts. I want to thank Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and with whom I have worked this past Congress as Vice Chairman, for his leadership on this bill which I support and on advancing initiatives that will improve the lives of Indian people.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend, Senator Akaka, in sponsoring the Department of the Interior Tribal Self- Governance Act of 2012. Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1975 to set forth a new dynamic in the Federal-tribal relationship. Since then, we have seen many benefits for Indian communities as a result of the Federal Indian policy of self- determination in general and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in particular. Indian self-determination is one of the most successful, if not the most successful, Federal Indian policies in the history of our country's relations with Indian Country. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was amended over 20 years ago to include the Self-Governance program. Self- Governance became a permanent program in the Department of the Interior in 1994, and it has been a resounding success. Now, as of 2012, hundreds of Indian tribes are participating in the Self-Governance program in one way or another. It comes as no surprise to me, that the Indian tribes can administer these programs on behalf of their own people far better than the Federal government could ever hope to administer them. Nevertheless, after some 18 years, the time has come for the self- governance program to be reviewed and improved. This bill is intended to provide ``key improvements to the way self-governance works in the Department of the Interior, improvements that have been studied, evaluated, discussed, and negotiated by the tribes and by the Department of the Interior. During the course of this Congress, some issues did arise relating to the self-governance program in Interior agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in particular the Bureau of Reclamation. Indian tribal leaders and Senate staff have worked for many months to resolve those issues, and their efforts in that regard are incorporated into this bill. I believe the bill goes a long way in dealing with those issues, and the program will be better off as a result of these efforts. I want to thank Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and with whom I have worked this past Congress as Vice Chairman, for his leadership on this bill which I support and on advancing initiatives that will improve the lives of Indian people.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Ronald Palmer for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ronald is a native of Rawlins, WY and a graduate of Rawlins High School. He currently attends Casper College where he is majoring in theatre performance. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Ronald for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Cyrus Western for his hard work as an intern in the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Cyrus is a native of Sheridan, WY. He graduated from Washington and Jefferson College with a bachelor of arts in environmental science. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Cyrus for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Franci Rooney for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Franci is a native of Dallas, TX. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a bachelor of arts in philosophy and Spanish. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Franci for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Rebekah Forman for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Rebekah is a native of Sheridan, WY and a graduate of Sheridan High School. She currently attends Laramie County Community College. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Rebekah for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It is wonderful to have her as part of our team. I am pleased she will be continuing her internship with my office through next semester.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mary Freeman for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Mary is a native of Cheyenne, WY and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming College of Law. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Mary for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the tax hikes that are going to be hitting middle-class families all across this country, and it is going to do so in a way that many Americans do not realize. Everyone in Washington is talking about the fiscal cliff and the tax increases that might come from that, but today I wish to talk about something different; that is, the tax increases that are coming regardless of what happens with the fiscal cliff. Those are the tax hikes we are seeing because of President Obama's health care law. People who have been following this closely know that President Obama's health care law guarantees that middle-class families will pay higher taxes. The President promised repeatedly that he would not raise taxes on the middle class. As a matter of fact, he said, ``If you're a family making less than $250,000 a year,'' referring to his health care plan, ``my plan won't raise your taxes one penny--not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.'' That is what the President said. But once he got into office, President Obama arranged for his health care plan to be written behind closed doors. Democrats in Congress passed it, and they did it strictly along party lines. This law included more than 20 different tax increases. These tax increases amount to more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Of those, a dozen taxes specifically targeted middle-class taxpayers. The most famous, of course, is the individual mandate tax. That is the one which requires that all Americans buy a government-approved health insurance plan. If they don't for even 1 single month out of the year, then they have to pay the tax. Members of the Senate ought to remember this one. This is the one the American public still finds very unfavorable, to the point that still a majority of Americans want to change or either completely eliminate and repeal the President's health care law. The law continues to be very unpopular. One of the main reasons has to do with this tax. It is a tax that is going to hit families harder than single people, and it is going to hit the middle class harder than wealthier Americans. You know what. That is the way it was designed, amazingly. That is the way the Democrats in this body designed the tax--to hit the middle class harder than wealthier Americans. By 2016, 4.7 million low- and middle-income households will face a tax for not buying government-approved health insurance. It was entirely predictable. In fact, a lot of us on the Republican side of the aisle did predict it right here on the floor of the Senate. Well, this leads me to another aspect of the health care law that the White House and the Democrats have not been eager to talk about, and it is the role specifically related to this tax, and that is the role of the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. The law gives the IRS unprecedented new powers to do what? To probe into taxpayers' lives. Right after the election--and they waited until after the election-- the Obama administration started releasing a wave of new health care regulations. These include new rules on how the IRS plans to implement the new health care taxes. Just last week, they put out proposed rules on how they are going to enforce the new Medicare payroll taxes. They still haven't said exactly how they plan to enforce the individual mandate tax. But we do know IRS agents are going to be verifying who bought health insurance and taxing everyone who didn't. We know the IRS will be doing more tax audits for health care spending. We know the IRS will be able to confiscate Americans' tax refunds. Why? Well, to pay for health care taxes--not to pay for health care but to pay for health care taxes and to assess interest and late fees on people without insurance. We know we are going to see an army of new IRS agents and auditors-- to do what? They are going to investigate the health insurance choices of Americans and their families. The agency is going to have to collect a huge amount of data not just from insurance companies but from the American people. The IRS is going to want to know details such as the cost and the benefit structure of every person's health insurance policy. They are going to want to know who in each household is covered and how long they have been covered. They will want to know the incomes people reported to their insurance company and what other kind of coverage their employer may have offered. To get all of this information, the Internal Revenue Service will have to develop new layers, additional layers of redtape for businesses and for families, new forms, new filing procedures, and new instructions. It is going to have to come up with some way for taxpayers to resolve any discrepancies, and there are going to be a lot between what their tax returns say and the data the insurance companies report. It is going to be a nightmare. It is not clear how the IRS is going to do this, but people are certainly going to need to keep very careful records. It is also clear that a lot of Americans are going to be defending themselves against audits. All of that is work the IRS is going to have to do just to get ready for this massive amount of new bureaucracy. The problem is that several independent reviews have found that the agency is seriously unprepared. In one, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS is not equipped--not equipped--to implement the law contained in what is called the ``largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years.'' The IRS hasn't even conducted a thorough review of the law that it is required to execute. As a result, the Inspector General's Office said it wasn't able to determine whether the IRS had adequately planned for the workforce it will need. There was a separate analysis done. There was an analysis done by the House of Representatives. They found that the IRS could need more than 16,000 new IRS agents, new IRS examiners, new IRS support employees. Well, you know as well as I that the American taxpayers will get hit with the bill to pay for the salaries of all of those new IRS employees--the agents, the examiners, and the support employees. The American people knew what they wanted from health care reform. What they asked for was the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what the President and Democrats promised them. It turns out that what the American public has gotten is fewer choices, more regulations, and higher taxes. In meeting after meeting, when visiting with constituents in Wyoming, I said, ``How many of you believe that under the President's health care law, you are going to pay more for your health insurance?'' All of the hands went up. I said, ``How many of you think that the quality and availability of your care because of the President's health care law is going to go down or it is going to get worse?'' Again, all of the hands went up. Now what these same people are learning is that the IRS is the chief Federal enforcer for key parts of President Obama's health care law. The people of my State and the people around the country do not like it at all. What we are going to have as a result of the health care law is a much larger Internal Revenue Service. They are going to have broad new powers--powers to investigate, powers to monitor, and powers to tax the American people. At the same time, there is real doubt about whether the agency is even up to the job. America's middle-class families don't want, don't need, and cannot afford more taxes. They don't want, they don't need, and they cannot afford a more powerful Internal Revenue Service, with more agents looking into the details of their health care choices, but that is exactly what President Obama and every Democrat in this body have given to the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Abe Schreier for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Abe is a native of Fort Wayne, IN. He graduated from Indiana University with a bachelor of arts in political science and history. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Abe for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the fiscal cliff the country will face on January 4. We are beyond the point of the election, and there is 4 weeks until the date of the fiscal cliff. As Republicans have been pointing out on this floor, Congress must act soon to take on the numerous expiring tax provisions and the sequester. I believe President Obama must provide leadership in those efforts. I have seen very little so far. Last week I came to the floor to speak about the fiscal cliff and some of the concerns I continue to have and hear about as I travel to Wyoming just about every weekend. I just got back from there a few days ago, and people are very concerned about the direction of the country and what may happen to all Americans on January 1. Last week on the floor, I spoke about the President's proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year. In terms of spending next year, that tax increase would pay for just 6.8 days of what Washington will spend. So the whole proposal the President continues to make is basically enough to fund the government for not 52 weeks but 1 week alone. The tax increases President Obama is now trying to push through will really do almost nothing to reduce our national deficit and nothing to reduce our national debt. The White House and Democrats in the Senate are focused only on tax hikes while they continue to ignore the real drivers of our debt, which are the out-of-control entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Until we find a way to do meaningful entitlement reform, no amount of tax revenue will be able to match the increase in entitlement spending. Well, instead of leading the conversation, the President continues in his campaign mode, going around the country to try to sell his tax hikes. The President and the Democrats in Congress are willing to go over the fiscal cliff in order to get those tax hikes. Rather than negotiate in good faith, they are willing to try to spend their time trying to convince the American people that it is someone else's fault. Going over the fiscal cliff will mean another recession, and this one is squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. It will mean unemployment spiking back up over 9 percent. It will also mean a whole host of tax increases even beyond the higher tax rates Washington Democrats want so badly. Americans are also facing big increases on the death tax and the alternative minimum tax, also known as the AMT. Both of these taxes will go up January 1 unless Democrats work with Republicans and take action to stop the increases that are already scheduled to occur. Now, there is bipartisan agreement that these taxes should not be raised. There is bipartisan agreement that these taxes will do great damage to middle-class families, family businesses, and family farms. Any effort to stop these harmful tax increases is being held up by the President's insistence on raising tax rates--not just raising more revenue through tax reform and economic growth but specifically raising tax rates. Let's take a look at the death tax. Today this tax, also known as the estate tax, is set up at a top rate of 35 percent, with an exception for the first $5.1 million in the estate's value. Well, those are the levels that Congress set and the President agreed to in 2010. There was a Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate, as well as a Democratic President in the White House. That was in 2010. Those levels are now set to jump dramatically to a top rate of 55 percent, with an exemption for just the first $1 million. Now, $1 million sounds like a lot of money until we start looking at a situation of family- owned businesses and family farms. For instance, farmers and ranchers have a lot of assets, such as land, buildings, and livestock. Those things are worth a lot of money for the purposes of calculating the value of someone's estate, but they are not liquid assets--they cannot just spend a tractor. Once a mom or dad dies in the farm family, the IRS wants the death tax paid within 9 months. The tax is calculated on those big valuations for the farm or ranch property and has to be paid in cash. Often, the only way for a family to pay the tax is to start selling off parts of the farm. Families who have farmed for generations are forced to make life-changing decisions regarding their future, and they have to do it very quickly. They may have to sell land or livestock at a time when prices are low because the tax bill is due immediately. If we don't act in Congress, this tax is going to hit more family farms, and it will hit them much harder, taking a much larger portion of the farm just to pay the taxes. When we take a look at this chart, talk about crushed by the death tax in terms of the number of small businesses and the number of family farms that will be hit under the estate tax in 2012 as opposed to what is going to happen in 2013, it is a huge increase in 2013 as they find a different way to calculate the death tax, and the same is true with family farms. So the number of family farms that will be hit by this death tax will jump from just under 100--the current limits--to about 2,400 farms next year. That is an enormous increase and an enormous burden on those farm families. The same thing holds true for other small family businesses, such as the local restaurant, the grocery on the corner, or the local auto body shop. Again, these are small businesses that may have assets that are worth a lot but are not easily turned into cash to pay a tax bill. Where I live in Casper, WY, most of the businesses we have are small businesses, such as the drycleaner, the florist, the car wash. A lot of those small businesses are run by families. Maybe it has been in the family for a couple of generations, and they want to pass their business down to the next generation, but when Washington comes looking to take its 55-percent cut, which is what is going to happen on January 1, that business will be forced to sell off assets or maybe just sell out entirely. When we look at the chart again, we can see that under the limits we negotiated in 2010, just 200 small business estates are hurt by the death tax. Starting next year, it jumps to about 2,700 small businesses. Just like with family farms, we are not talking about big, faceless corporations. We are not talking about what happens when the founders of Walmart die. We are talking about what happens when the owner of a small family business dies. If these death tax increases go into effect, a lot of the sons and daughters are not going to be able to keep the family business their parents worked so hard to build and pass along. Democrats and Republicans agree this would be a terrible blow to a family farm or to a small family business. There is so much we talk about when it comes to uncertainty, and just the uncertainty about what is going to happen next year under the death tax is very stressful for many families across the country who are running their own small businesses and their own small farms or ranches. At the very least, we should extend the current limits worked out in the 2010 compromise. President Obama should not be holding up that commonsense solution so he can satisfy his left-based agenda for unrealistically insisting on raising tax rates. The other tax increase that is set to hit American families very hard very soon is the alternative minimum tax. The Presiding Officer will recall the AMT tax was created in 1969 and that occurred when some discovered there were 155 people all across the country--only 155 people--who had made a lot of money but didn't pay any taxes on it, and we know why. It was because of various tax loopholes. Congress could have done something to close those loopholes but, instead, Congress created a whole separate tax scheme. Then, to make matters worse, they didn't index the income limits for inflation. So Congress comes along every year and enacts a patch to keep the tax from hitting the middle class. The problem is we still have done nothing to patch the AMT for this year. I have another chart about the millions of people who will owe the AMT come next April. In 2011, 3 million people paid the AMT. It was designed because of 155 people who didn't pay taxes. Now we will have 31 million Americans who will be hit by the tax for the tax year 2012 if nothing is done to patch the problem. So if we don't do something soon, the AMT will hit an additional 28 million taxpayers this year for a total of $92 billion. That is the extra tax American families face when they file their 2012 taxes by April 15 of next year. These aren't the privileged few who are taking advantage of special loopholes the tax was intended to catch. These are 28 million taxpayers who normally never have to deal with the AMT. It is going to hit middle-class families in every State, more than 31 million taxpayers total across the country. We can debate whether it was ever a good idea to enact the AMT a number of years ago, but we certainly should all agree the AMT is about to hit a whole lot of people who should never have had to worry about it in the first place. Those people are going to have to pay the IRS an average of $3,200 more in taxes--that is what the IRS is going to expect--by April 15. Most of these people have no idea they are going to get caught in this AMT trap, and they have no idea how big a check they are going to have to write. These are middle-class, hard-working families who will get hit by additional taxes. Why? Because we can't take the simple step of patching the AMT as we always do. Again, there is bipartisan agreement that we need to enact this patch, but it is being held up as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. The President has made his offer. He wants to increase taxes, add more stimulus spending, ignore the entitlement spending that is the true driver of our debt, and hold campaign-style rallies around the country to try to convince people it is not his fault if we go over the fiscal cliff. President Obama clearly enjoys campaigning, but the election is over. It is time for him to stop campaigning and to start leading. This means giving up his stubborn insistence on raising tax rates and instead focusing on raising revenue through tax reform and economic growth. It means doing something on these fundamental issues of tax policy that both sides agree on. That way American families will not get hit with these massive tax increases. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the fiscal cliff this country is facing and is coming upon us on January 1. As my colleagues have been pointing out, Congress must act soon to take on the numerous expiring tax provisions in the sequester. I believe President Obama needs to supply the leadership in those efforts. If he does not, we know taxes are going to go up on all Americans; we know the economy is going to be thrown back into a recession; and we know unemployment will return to even higher rates than we have right now. Our recovery from the last recession has been far too sluggish. We see that all across the country. It has left too many Americans still out of work. Today our economy has created 9 million fewer jobs than we were promised under the President's own stimulus plan. Our economy has rebounded far more slowly than it did following previous recessions. As a nation we simply cannot afford another recession right now. It would be especially tragic if there were a recession caused by a failure of leadership coming out of the White House. That is what we are trying to avoid, and we have a very limited amount of time to do it. As chairman of the Republican policy committee, we have come out with a policy paper called ``On the Fiscal Cliff, Entitlement Reform Is Key'' because what we see is that no amount of tax revenue will fix entitlement spending when we look at the history of the United States. Over the last 40 years the average amount of tax revenue was a little over 18 percent of the gross national product. The highest ever was a little over 20 percent of the gross national product. Yet when we take a look at the tidal waves coming at us of Social Security and Medicare, unless we deal with those two tidal waves we are going to significantly have problems long term, and that message to the markets is going to be one that is quite destabilizing. Tax increases do not solve the spending problem. If we do what the President requests, which is raising tax rates on people with over $200,000 a year of income, in terms of spending for next year that would pay for about 6.8 days. If we did it at the other level of over $1 million of income as some suggested, it would only pay for 4 days of spending. I am very concerned about what I call the fiscal cliff. Yesterday, Politico reported that some Democrats want to call it the fiscal slope. It is time for Democrats in Washington to stop searching for better sound bites and start looking for solutions. President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to take a balanced approach. This balanced approach should govern how we deal with other issues as well and how Democrats work with Republicans in the Senate. Given the challenges we face, it is unfortunate that some of the President's closest allies in the Senate are for pushing the exact opposite approach. Rules Changes The majority leader and some members of his party have now proposed what would be an unprecedented power grab that will forever change this Chamber's rules. It will make it easier for the political majority to silence those who disagree with them and even harder to find common ground. I am speaking, of course, about the Democratic plan to change the rules of the Senate to drastically limit the use of the filibuster. I believe the majority leader would take a dangerous step toward abolishing the rights of the political minority and restricting the right to free and open debate. They seem to want to break the rules to change the rules, and I believe it is fundamentally wrong to break the rules in order to change the rules. This would be a terrible mistake and a irresponsible abuse of power. The rules of the Senate ensure a balanced approach to debating important matters such as the fiscal crisis. Among these rules, filibuster is critically important. The filibuster was created so that competing groups of Senators would actually have to work together to find responsible solutions--not solutions based on one political ideology or the other. Back when he was a Senator, President Obama understood the need for rules to protect the rights of political minorities. In 2005, then- Senator Obama said: If the majority chooses to end the filibuster--if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate--then the fighting and bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. Another former Senator was Vice President Biden, currently the President of the Senate. He agreed. He said: At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. At the time, in 2005, some Republicans wanted to vote on well- qualified judges despite Democrats' insistence not to. They believed we needed to change the Senate rules to get these votes. Back then, Democrats called this the nuclear option. That is because of the damage it would do to the balance and compromise in Washington. Today some of those same Democratic Senators are preparing to use this nuclear option themselves. Anytime one party or group is frustrated with the Senate's inefficiency, there are always calls to change the rules. The frustration is natural, but it is also intentional. Our Nation's Founding Fathers purposely made the pace of the Senate deliberate. They wanted to make sure there was free debate on important subjects. That is what has happened now for more than 200 years. Way back in 1789, the very first session of the first Congress, Senators used the rules to slow down one of the first votes this body ever took. Naturally, there were complaints at the time about the delay. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, explained the importance of the rules that allowed the brakes to be applied to policymaking. He wrote: If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Angels have always been in very short supply in Washington, so voters must keep an eye on government officials and hold them responsible. Those officials must also keep close watch on each other. At times they must be able to stop each other from doing harm. Restricting the right to debate would seriously undermine the ability of Senators to keep that watchful eye. It will lead to more bickering, more bad blood, and more bills being written by one party behind closed doors. There will be less transparency, less consideration of the unintended consequences in bills and less open discussion for the American people to see. The filibuster is not just about stopping bad ideas. More often it is about amending bills to make them better. It is about taking the time to have the reasoned discussion that the Founders knew we should be having. It is about maintaining the balanced approach the President is calling for in these important talks on the fiscal cliff. It is about giving members of the minority and the people they represent a chance to offer their solutions. Instead of allowing that measured approach the Founders intended, what we are seeing is the majority leader has already done an awful lot to limit debate. He has already restricted the rights of minority Senators and the people they represent. He has bypassed committees at an extraordinary pace, and he has made unprecedented use of the parliamentary trick known as filling the tree. Senator Reid has filled this amendment tree 67 times since he has been majority leader. That is more than twice as often as the four previous majority leaders combined. Now the majority leader wants to cut off debate and abolish the filibuster. He wants to change the rules by breaking the rules. He would set the precedent that just 51 Senators could band together to change any rule of the Senate at any time. Currently, it takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. In January it might be filibusters on motions to proceed. Then when the majority gets impatient on something else, it might change the rules again. President Obama recognized in 2005 the damage that this kind of chipping away at minority rights would do to prospects for compromise. If Senate Democrats succeed now, they will destroy, for temporary political gain, any hope of achieving a truly balanced solution to the challenges we face as a nation. Our political system functions on majority rule but with strong minority rights. That is true when the minority is outvoted 51 to 49 or 99 to 1. Democracy is not winner-take-all. The right to debate is not a luxury for the majority to hand out. It is essential to our system of government. Majorities are temporary. Being forced to listen to someone give an opinion you disagree with can be exasperating, but as a country it does us more good than harm. Way, way back, John Adams wrote on the need for minorities to have the ability to stop the majority in the legislature. He said: Every Member must possess it, or he can never be secure that himself and his constituents shall not be sacrificed by all the rest. That was centuries ago. Sixteen years ago, Senator Robert Byrd spoke to the newly elected Members of the Senate about the history of this body. He said: As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will be secure. Through his excessive use of filling the tree, the current majority leader has gone a long way toward gutting the power to amend. The proposals he has now made to do away with the power of unlimited debate would do even greater harm to the liberties of the people. Many Senators here today were not around 16 years ago to hear that speech by Senator Byrd, but I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle take his warning to heart. If Members on the other side of the aisle are frustrated with how the Senate is being run, look at how the majority leader has set the calendar and cut off amendments. Don't take this terrible and irresponsible step. We are not only arguing about the rights of the Senators to speak, we are not just talking about maintaining rules for their own sake, or even the terrible precedent that would be set under the proposal of the majority leader. We are talking about the rights of the people we represent, the right to be heard in the Senate. The Senators who are so eager to change our rules by breaking the rules should not be so eager to take away the rights of the American people whom those rules were designed to protect. The cost is simply too high. We have too much important work to do in the Senate. We should be focused on doing all we can to avoid the fiscal cliff, to grow our economy, and to create the jobs the American people need and deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record a document that I think everyone in this body should consider. There is no question that our Nation is facing a challenging financial future. Our country needs real leadership to recognize the problems that we are facing and address them directly. For 75 years, my home State has benefited from the knowledge and expertise of the Wyoming Taxpayers Association. The Wyoming Taxpayers Association has fought for transparency, equity, balance, and stability for Wyoming taxpayers. There is no question that the U.S Tax Code is a mess and in need of serious reform. As we look to address our debt crisis and reform the Tax Code, we should take a responsible, sensible approach to taxation. The Wyoming Taxpayers Association's ``Cornerstones of Taxation'' provides an excellent foundation that we should consider as we debate the future of the U.S. Tax Code. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wyoming Taxpayers Association's ``Cornerstones of Taxation.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we have all paused to remember our Nation's veterans this week. This year, the Daniels Scholars wrote letters to our country's heroes in uniform. These letters, published in Because of you . . . Letters of Gratitude from the 2012 Daniels Scholars to the Defenders of American Freedom, are heartwarming. The Daniels Scholarship Program was created by a true American patriot, Bill Daniels. Bill was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in the Navy in World War II. He was called back into service during the Korean War. Bill went on to have a tremendously successful career. Due to his generosity, young people from Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado are selected to be Daniels Scholars. In addition to their college tuition and fees, they receive tremendous support and encouragement to give back to their communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter written by Megan Saylor from Casper, WY. May it inspire all who read it.