John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, just yesterday, the White House went out and applauded the fact that Saudi Arabia is producing more oil. The President goes to Brazil and tells the President of Brazil we want to be their No. 1 customer. This is at the same time this White House is blocking American energy projects and American energy jobs. Held hostage by environmental extremists, this President continues to block and cause people to lose jobs in the United States. Earlier this week, the No. 3 coal producer in the country announced the layoff of 1,200 workers. So not only are Americans who are working in American energy losing their jobs, the President's policies continue to block new jobs from being created. The President continues to stand in blockade of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would bring back thousands of good-paying, family-wage jobs. Yet the President says no. Harry Reid, the majority leader, stands at that desk and he blocks over a dozen bills passed by the House of Representatives that are good American energy jobs that will put people back to work. Republicans stand ready to produce more American energy, which will put people back to work, will stimulate our economy, and will help lower energy costs for American families. The American people deserve better than they are getting from the Democratic majority in the Senate and from the Democratic President of the United States.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota, who speaks so eloquently on the major issues facing our Nation, the concerns of people all around the country: their quality of life, the cost of energy, the cost of their health care, the impact of government regulations and rules that make it harder and more expensive for small businesses to add workers to their rolls. A Second Opinion I come to the floor today as a physician, a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming, taking care of families there for about a quarter of a century, to do as I have done week after week since the health care law was passed: to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law because one of the reasons I got involved in politics was, as a doctor, I have concern for my patients, worried that they were not getting the care they need from the doctor they want at a lower cost, realizing the impacts of costs on the availability of care, the quality of care. So when the health care law was passed, I had great concerns because I felt it was going to end up being bad for patients, bad for the providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients-- and terrible for the American taxpayer. It was interesting that during the discussion of the health care law, Nancy Pelosi, the then-Speaker of the House, said that in terms of the health care law, first you had to pass it before you got to find out what is in it. Well, the law has been passed, and as more and more people are finally finding out what is in it, the law continues to be very unpopular. But it is interesting that when a law is written behind closed doors, passed in the dark of night, when people on the side who voted for it actually never read it, did not understand the implications, that here we are 2 years later with so many people still saying: What is in it? One of the things I want to visit about today is an editorial in the New York Times from just a couple of weeks ago. It was while I was traveling around the State of Wyoming, visiting with people, visiting with former patients, that an editorial came out with the headline ``A Glitch in Health Care Reform.'' Well, for 2 years I have been coming back to the Senate floor, week after week after week, talking about things that were in this health care law--unintended consequences, things people did not realize were there, did not understand were there, were surprised to find out were there. So the headline is ``A Glitch in Health Care Reform.'' Right under that, the subheadline is ``Millions of middle-class Americans could be left without affordable coverage.'' And then my favorite line, the first line, the first paragraph: Confusing language in the health care reform law has raised the possibility that millions of Americans living on modest incomes may be unable to afford their employers' family policies and yet fail to qualify for government subsidies to buy their own insurance. Confusing language. That is what happens when a law is written behind closed doors, not read by the people who voted for it, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America says: First, you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. And this is an editorial in the New York Times 2 years after the health care bill has been signed into law: Confusing language. ``A glitch in health care reform. Millions of middle-class Americans could be left without coverage.'' So it is not a surprise that I will continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion because we will continue to find where confusing language leaves people confused. Now, one of the areas that is so often discussed on the Senate floor is the Congressional Budget Office. Well, they came out today with a new report. It talks about the health care law. No surprise. They said they got it wrong a couple of years ago. They have relooked at the numbers. This is the Congressional Budget Office that is supposed to be an expert on making some assumptions and making some suggestions and some predictions. Today they came out with a report called ``Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'' Now, let's go back. Payments of penalties for being uninsured. Well, this is a health care law that reaches into every home in America and says: You must buy a government-approved product. You must have health insurance. Not enough money to pay for doctors to care for patients but plenty of money for IRS agents to investigate the American people. What does it say when we go through the report? They said, well, they thought there would be about 4 million people who would have to pay penalties for being uninsured under the health care law. Well, they were only wrong, they say, by 50 percent. They were off by 50 percent; not 4 million but 6 million Americans will be penalized and have to pay taxes under the health care law which the Supreme Court found to be constitutional. Well, it may not be unconstitutional, but it is still unworkable, very unaffordable, and very unpopular. So I come to the floor week after week as new reports continue to come out saying CBO was wrong. The New York Times, talking about ``confusing language.'' You know, I would say James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had it right when he said: You should pass no laws so voluminous they cannot be read, so incoherent they cannot be understood. But that is what Democrats in the House and the Senate did when they passed and when the President signed the health care law. Now, another report has just come out within the last couple of days. I recall the President, when he was talking about the health care law, said computerizing medical records would cut waste and eliminate redtape. Now what does the report say? Well, it says the amount of paperwork, the amount of manhours put into just complying with the rules and the regulations they have come up with--they are predicting-- and I will get into those who have done the predictions--that businesses and families will end up spending 80 million--80 million-- hours a year on paperwork trying to comply with this health care law. Former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Fred Goldberg said the current form of the Obama health care law ``will be a needless administrative and compliance quagmire for millions of Americans.'' The Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives under committee chairman David Camp found that more than half of those 80 million manhours will be consumed by small businesses. That is the group that can least afford to have to spend this kind of time, this kind of manpower. Talk about productive work and nonproductive work, this goes into the category of nonproductive work. So they are either going to hire more people to just do paperwork or take people from doing productive work and move them onto the nonproductive side. They are talking about 40,000 full-time people working the number of hours they would work to get this 80 million manhours of work. It is wasteful. It creates no wealth overall to the economy. It is not a productive activity. So those are the things we see week after week. Then, finally, last week there was a group of franchise owners who were traveling around visiting with Members on Capitol Hill about the impact of the health care law on them and on their small businesses. They want to hire people. They want to get people to work. We know under the President's economy, there are 23 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed, people looking for work, looking for better work, looking for more hours. But let's look at the incentives as well as the consequences that are included in the health care law. Well, these small franchise owners will tell you that in order to try to comply with the law and not be driven out of business because of the expense of the penalties and the high level of insurance they would have to provide to their workers, they only have a couple of choices. One of the choices--they do not like it, but one of the choices is to cut the number of hours an employee works because then they are a part- time employee. Then they do not have to receive the benefits of the mandate, of the health care law. That is not what they want to do. It is not what the employees want. They want to work more hours. But the consequences of what the Democrats in this institution have passed, the consequences are that people who want to work more are going to lose that opportunity. The other thing they are looking at is saying, well, just drop paying for insurance at all and pay the fine. Pay the penalty because the consequences and the incentives are such that the fine is, from a business standpoint, the path to follow rather than to provide the high level of insurance the President mandates. It may be a lot more insurance than people want or need or that the businesses can afford. So I will continue to come back to the floor to talk about the President's broken promises. He said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. We now know people who like their health insurance are not going to be able to keep it. He said the insurance rates would drop by about $2,500 per family per year. We have seen the rates have gone up more than $3,000 a year instead of dropping $2,500 a year. The promises are many. The realities are quite different than what the President has promised. That is why the American people continue to find the health care law unpopular. It is why our seniors who have seen 700 billion of their Medicare dollars taken away from them, not to save Medicare but to start a whole other government program for others, that is why they know it is going to be harder to find a physician to take care of them, especially if their physician retires or if they move to a new location. That is why I will continue to come back to the floor to continue to talk about trying to help people get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. This health care law is bad for patients. It is bad for providers, nurses, and doctors who take care of those patients. It is terrible for the American taxpayers. That is why I believe we need to repeal and replace this broken health care law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes today to talk about our Nation's economy. This speech is not about the economy that we wish we had; this speech is not about the economy that we used to have; this is about the economy that we have today. By now, Americans are all too familiar with the bad economic news. The front page of today's Wall Street Journal provides little respite from that bad news. It reads, and here is the headline, front page: ``Household Income Sinks To '95 Level.'' Let me say that again: ``Household Income Sinks To '95 Level.'' The President talks about moving forward. But the reality is that the American paychecks are moving backward. The article goes on to describe a report from the Census Bureau, a report that illustrates what millions of Americans already know. We are not better off than where we were last year or the year before or the year before that. In fact, the Census Bureau data shows that household incomes in 2011 fell for the fourth consecutive year. Hard-working Americans do not need census data to tell them this, they know it. All they need to do is look at their paycheck. For many it is significantly smaller. While paychecks continue to shrink, the cost of everyday living has gone up. Gasoline prices have gone up another 30 cents a gallon in just over a month. Americans recently paid the highest price ever on a Labor Day weekend for gasoline. One out of every seven people in America is now on food stamps. In 2008, that was before President Obama's election, the poverty rate was 13.2 percent, and 38.8 million Americans were in poverty. This week's numbers show a 16-percent increase in just 3 years. Poverty rates remain stuck at their highest level since 1993. I made many of the same points last week in the response to the President's weekly address, but I believe it is important to make them again. While many Americans worry about their shrinking paycheck, far too many others have no paycheck at all. Today, 23 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Many of these folks are our friends, our neighbors, and family members. The undeniable truth is President Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any President since World War II. When the President was hyping his so-called stimulus program, his economic team claimed unemployment would not go above 8 percent and would be below 6 percent by now. Instead, it has been higher than 8 percent for 43 straight months. According to last week's jobs data, unemployment dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent. Why does that happen? It didn't drop because of newly created jobs. It dropped because 368,000 Americans simply gave up looking for work. They just gave up. With the stimulus bill, the President promised jobs. The only thing he delivered was not jobs but more debt. It is bad enough that the stimulus was wasted. Even worse, he borrowed the money, much of it from China. The reality is that America is not better off than it was 4 years ago. In terms of global competitiveness, the United States has dropped for 4 straight years. When President Obama took office, we were No. 1 in the world. Now we are No. 7. Why? American businesses are at a competitive disadvantage. That is because of our tax rates. They are the highest in the developed world. American businesses are being asked to create jobs in the face of a regulatory onslaught the likes of which we have never seen before. Americans know what works. What works here in this country is low taxes, reasonable regulations, and living within our means. President John Kennedy understood that. He said: Persistently large deficits would endanger our economic growth and our military and defense commitments abroad. He said that 50 years ago, in 1962. Washington's budget deficit that year, in 1962, was $7 billion. From $7 billion then to $1.2 trillion this year. For every year since he has taken office, President Obama has spent at least $1 trillion more than Washington took in--all of it borrowed. And there is no end in sight. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government ran a $192 billion deficit last month alone. This is the highest deficit ever for the month of August. Under his watch, government continues to spend too much, borrow too much, and grow bigger every day. President Obama's record of failure has come at a great cost to our country and to our future. The President's policies have failed to produce the results, the accountability, and the solutions that the American people deserve. The Obama administration is simply not moving our country forward. A healthy economy comes from a growing private sector. Yet the President doesn't seem to appreciate or value the private sector. Remember, he said if you have a business you didn't build it, someone else did? In Wyoming and in communities all across this country there are bakers and florists and dry cleaners and farmers who did build their businesses and whose families have been working in them for generations. Those business owners know what President Obama does not. They understand, as Ronald Reagan put it, that you can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy, and still be for the little guy. As a Nation we are being bled by overspending, we are being choked by regulations, and we are being paralyzed by a lack of affordable energy. Just look at one of the President's favorite legislative accomplishments, the President's health care law. The American people knew what they wanted from health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Instead, what did they get? They got a $700 billion cut to Medicare, a government mandate that everyone must buy insurance, funding for IRS agents to investigate you, but too little money for doctors to treat you. Similar to health care, the American people know exactly what they want from our Nation's energy policy. What they want is energy security. Yet the President continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline and the oil and the jobs that come with it. The President has wasted millions and millions in taxpayer dollars on Solyndra, and the President continues to stifle domestic production of affordable American energy sources such as coal while driving up energy bills for the American people. Since energy security is not a priority for this President, what about financial security for our children and grandchildren? Washington has piled a mountain of debt on the backs of future generations, and the President keeps adding more. On his watch, the national debt just passed $16 trillion, with no end in sight. President Obama says he deserves a grade of incomplete on his handling of the economy, but people only ask for an incomplete grade when they know they are failing. He is now asking all of us to give him more time. The question is, Can we afford to give him that time? As I said in the beginning of this address on the floor of the Senate, it is not about the economy we wish we had or the economy we used to have; it is about the economy we have today. It is about reality. Instead of giving President Obama 4 more years to continue the policies that have not worked and are not working, it is time for a change. A Second Opinion Madam President, I would also like to take a few moments today to talk, as I do each week in the Senate, as a physician and give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I come to the Senate floor just about every week to talk about the health care law. I have practiced medicine in Wyoming for one-quarter of a century. I have taken care of families and many patients on Medicare. What I wish to do today is talk about the health care law's impact specifically on our seniors who rely on Medicare for their health care. Specifically, I wish to talk about how this law is going to impact those living in rural and frontier areas such as Wyoming. I know it can be very challenging for people living in rural communities to get the care they need, especially from a doctor they choose. The associated press recently described this issue in an article entitled ``Boomers retiring to rural areas won't find doctors.'' The story highlighted the trouble Nina Musselman from rural Oregon had finding a new family physician when her previous doctor moved away. After 1 year of going to different physicians who would treat her temporarily, she finally found a new permanent provider. The words she used to describe her experience were: ``It's a sad situation for seniors.'' Unfortunately, because of the President's health care law, the situation for seniors--especially those living in rural communities--is only expected to get worse. The article not only confirms that fewer doctors are working in rural areas but also that the program pays rural doctors less for a procedure. This fact, combined with the cuts to the program scheduled to take place under the health care law, means seniors in rural areas will have greater difficulty finding a doctor to take care of them. Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania put it this way: If the cuts to Medicare are allowed to go through, ``the doctors are saying: We're out of here.'' Professor Pauly adds: The least they [the doctors] are saying is: ``We'll treat Medicare patients like we treat Medicaid patients,'' which is mostly not. Over the past 2 weeks the Republicans and Democratic parties have held their nominating conventions. The Nation has had an opportunity to hear from both Governor Romney and President Obama about their accomplishments and their visions for America. After hearing the President's speech, I was struck by the fact that he barely mentioned his health care law. The newspaper Politico stated: ``In back-to-back speeches, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden all but ignored the Affordable Care Act.'' It isn't surprising, given the fact that the law remains deeply unpopular with the majority of the American people. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll found that half the people surveyed support repealing the health care law. The President and Washington Democrats might be trying to avoid the law. As a physician who practiced in Wyoming, I believe the topic is too important to ignore. All seniors, especially those in rural America, need to know how this law will impact their ability to get the care they need. Previously, the Institute of Medicine found that there are fewer primary care physicians--as well as other medical specialists--per capita in rural areas compared to urban areas. It is not just primary care physicians and it is not just specialists, it is both. So while people in rural America make up 20 percent of the Nation's population, they are only served by about 9 percent of the Nation's physicians. The Kaiser Family Foundation tells us the beneficiaries in rural areas account for at least 60 percent of the Medicare populations in Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. This is why I have such a passion for ensuring that all our seniors, no matter where they live, can receive their Medicare benefits. Unfortunately, all America knows is that the President's health care law made significant cuts to Medicare. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office told us the law takes over $700 billion from the Medicare Program. This money will not be used to improve the health care received by seniors but, rather, to pay for a whole new government program for someone else. In fact, if the cuts in the health care law are implemented, the nonpartisan Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that Medicare payments for inpatient hospital services would eventually be only 39 percent of private insurance rates. The situation facing physicians is not any better. The actuary at CMS reported that in 2009 Medicare paid physicians approximately 80 percent of private insurance rates. Under current law, if the cuts are allowed to move forward, Medicare will eventually only pay about 26 percent of the rate of private insurance. There is no question that the ramifications of these cuts will directly impact the ability of seniors to receive the health care they need. As Professor Timothy Jost noted in the New England Journal of Medicine: If the gap between private and Medicare rates continues to grow-- As it is under this law-- health care providers may well abandon Medicare. For the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare, losing access to the program is simply not acceptable. When the President passed his health care law, he proudly stated he was expanding health care coverage for millions of Americans. What he failed to mention is that this expanding coverage is being bought at the expense of American seniors. Washington Democrats have long argued that the cuts to Medicare will do two things at the same time. They say it will expand health coverage for the uninsured and extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. In Wyoming and all across the country people know we cannot spend the same money twice. Apparently, the President and supporters of his health care law, right here in this body, think they can. Their logic defies math and it defies common sense. As a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated in a recent op-ed: ``Any suggestion that Medicare will last longer is an illusion--not a fact.'' America's seniors cannot afford the spending illusions contained in the health care law. Congress must act and repeal the law before Medicare is transformed from a vital program into an empty promise. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, during Wyoming's State Fair, Senator Enzi and I will have the honor of inducting Gene Hardy into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming ranchers care for the land because it cares for them and their families. The Hardy Ranch tradition began in 1920 when Gene's father homesteaded in Converse County, WY. By the 1930s, the Hardy family was producing both cattle and sheep. Gene Hardy is a third generation rancher continuing the family business of multi-species livestock production. Additionally, he balances wildlife and energy production on the Hardy Ranch. Balancing the ranch's resources has led Gene to also be an industry leader in terms of multiple use land management. Mr. President, innovative is a word that describes Gene. He has organized his livestock operation to improve production utilizing land management through aerial monitoring. As a pilot, he has been flying planes for 50 years over the Hardy Ranch with the result being profitable livestock production and sustainable grazing. Furthermore, he has focused on innovation through superior genetics to produce quality livestock. Gene is committed to the livestock industry. He works tirelessly to help his fellow producers. Previously, Gene served as president of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and on boards for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. However, his involvement does not stop there. He is still actively involved in many local, State, and national agricultural organizations. Currently, Gene serves as the chairman of the American Sheep Industry Association's Predator Management Committee. Gene's dedication and leadership will help ensure the success of the industry for future generations of agriculturalists. As my friend Bryce Reece, executive-vice president of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, remarked, ``We need a lot more Gene Hardy's in this world.'' Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Enzi in congratulating Gene Hardy, 2012 inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming lands and livestock are better because of his service.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I do week after week--as a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming and taken care of families in Wyoming across our State for a quarter of a century--to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. One of the central claims of President Obama and Democrats in Washington who voted in this Senate Chamber was that the health care law would extend insurance coverage for millions of Americans. That was their goal. They claim that is actually what has happened. The President claimed repeatedly that 30 million more Americans would receive health coverage because of the health care law. Well, after practicing medicine for 25 years, I understand there is a huge difference between health coverage and health care. When people have a health insurance card, then they have coverage. When people have access to a doctor, nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician's assistant, then they can receive health care. The New York Times actually pointed that out this Sunday morning. It was the front page, above the fold. They proclaimed in the first paragraph of an article that the President's health care law delivers coverage but not care. As a matter of fact, when I take a look at this article dated Sunday, July 29, 2012, of the New York Times, page 1, above the fold, ``Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law,'' underneath it says that primary care is scarce, in bold letters, and beyond that it says: Expanded coverage but a greater strain on a burdened system. The story highlights a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges, which found that in 2015, just 3 years from now, the country will face a shortage of over 60,000 doctors. By 2025, the shortage is expected to expand to approximately 130,000. So while the Nation was already facing this shortage, the article points out it has been made worse by the President's health care law. The shortage of providers is very important because, as the article states, ``Coverage will not necessarily translate into care.'' This is especially true for those individuals who are supposed to receive their health care through Medicaid. Let's remember, a huge expansion of Medicaid was part of the President's health care law. It was part of the discussion in the Supreme Court, the decision they came out with. Of course, Medicaid is the program that provides health care for low- income Americans. The President's health care law contained one of the largest expansions of Medicaid in the program's history. The President chose to expand the program despite the fact that fewer than half of the primary care clinicians would accept new Medicaid patients as of 2008. Fewer than half of the primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients. Yet that is from where the President chose to build his health care reform. Some might ask: Why is it that so many primary care physicians are not seeing Medicaid patients? It is because the reimbursements provided to doctors are so low that many can't afford to see Medicaid patients and continue to keep their doors open. Unfortunately, the outlook for Medicaid in this country has not improved. USA Today reported in July that 13 States are moving to cut Medicaid even further by doing a couple of things. They want to reduce benefits, they want to pay health providers less, or tighten eligibility for the program. So the program the President highlights as one of the cores of his health care law is already in significant trouble, is not functioning, and is getting worse. The State of Illinois has imposed a new limit on the number of prescription drugs that a patient who is on Medicaid can receive. This cap was imposed as part of a plan to cut $1.6 billion from the States' Medicaid Program. Mark Heyrman, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, told the Chicago Tribune that the prescription drug limits amount to a denial of service. So that is what we are looking at now. Yet this is the basis upon which the President has built his health care law. According to the most recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, over one-third of the people expected to gain insurance coverage under the President's health care law are supposed to do it through this Medicaid Program. Clearly, with States being forced to cut back their existing Medicaid Program, there are many people who are not going to get the care they were promised through the President's health care law. For those who can find a physician, many of these patients will have to commute longer distances and will also have to endure longer waiting times just to get the treatment they are seeking. Some experts have described this as an invisible problem, and they say that is because people may still get care, but the process of receiving that care will be more difficult. The chief executive of the California Medical Association says, ``It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity''--the seriousness of the injury or illness to that patient when they finally get the care they need. When care is delayed, medical problems can become much more serious, and that forces patients to seek treatment through other settings. One of the prime examples of that is heading to the emergency room. Well, the whole goal, I remember, of the debate on the Senate floor in listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was that patients under the President's health care law, the Democrats claimed, would be able to get to see a primary care doctor and would not have to go to the emergency room. However, that is not what we are finding under the President's health care law. We are finding just the opposite of what the President promised. That is why the Medical College of Emergency Physicians told the Wall Street Journal: While there are provisions in the law to benefit emergency care patients, it is clear that emergency visits will increase, as we have already seen nationwide. So the President says one thing and the American College of Emergency Physicians is telling us what they are seeing on a daily basis in emergency rooms across the country. To put it another way, since the President's health care law exacerbated the shortage of providers, more patients are seeking treatment in emergency rooms. This is not what the American people were looking for in health reform. Instead of making empty promises, supporters of the health care law should have dealt with the issues that are already causing many doctors to rethink their medical career. For example, supporters of the law absolutely refused to deal with the crushing burden of the medical lawsuit abuse. It is an abusive situation that is forcing doctors to practice a significant amount of defensive medicine, which is very expensive. It is expensive for individual patients as well as expensive for the system. The Harvard School of Public Health found that these costs amount to 2.4 percent of annual health spending in the United States or $55 billion in 2008. That is the Harvard School of Public Health. There are other estimates out there which go with much higher numbers. Apparently supporters of the law thought it was more important to help trial lawyers instead of patients. As a matter of fact, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has said they left lawsuit abuse out of the health care law because of the significant impact that trial lawyers have as contributors to the Democratic Party. So here we are. Additionally, the health care law does nothing to stop the crushing burden of government regulations and paperwork that is consuming the health care profession. Finally, many people choose to become doctors because they enjoy being able to innovate and create the next generation of devices and treatments. Unfortunately, that is changing as a result of the significant taxes that are part of the health care law. In an article published on Friday, we have learned that Cook Medical, which is a medical device company in Indiana, announced that it was scrapping plans to expand because of the President's health care law. There are similar companies in States all across the country, many with large medical institutions who have a history of the best innovation in the land--and actually in the world--that are faced with these medical device taxes, not on profit but on the gross amount of money sales. The company said the 2.3-percent medical device tax contained in the law would stop the company from opening five new plants in the United States and add approximately 300 new good-paying jobs. The Senate should also know that this Cook Medical Company produces medical devices that address women's health issues. Specifically, the company produces products related to gynecologic surgery, obstetrics, and assisted reproduction, to name a few. Therefore, the President's health care law is actually hurting the ability of Cook Medical and other companies to provide American women with access to cutting-edge medical technology. Why? Because of the device tax, which I believe--I believe we should repeal the entire law, but clearly we have introduced legislation to repeal the medical device tax. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation supported from both parties and should be passed immediately. It seems Democrats are reluctant to look at parts of the health care law and repeal the law. All this means medicine is becoming less of an attractive career choice for many young people across the country. As CNN stated in a headline from July 29, just 2 days ago, ``Your health care is covered, but who's going to treat you?'' The President and Washington Democrats did not seem interested in addressing this question when the health care law was passed. More effort was put into hiring IRS agents to look into whether a person had insurance than to actually see if there were doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and others to care for patients. Instead of focusing on policies that would give incentives for more people to become health care providers, they filled their law with empty promises the American people know today have not been kept. It is time for Congress to repeal the President's health care law and replace it with real reforms that will improve the ability of patients to get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is why I come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion about a health care law which as the front page of the Sunday New York Times said: ``Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law.'' Primary care is scarce. Expanded coverage but a greater strain on a burdened system. As I have been saying for a number of years on the Senate floor, coverage will not necessarily translate into care. Thank you. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, Wyoming has experienced an incredible loss. I rise today to remember one of Wyoming's most beloved citizens, Neil McMurry. On Thursday, July 19, 2012, Neil passed away at the age of 88. During his remarkable life, Neil made a profound and lasting contribution to the Casper community and the great State of Wyoming. Neil was a successful entrepreneur, a committed citizen, and a good friend. Throughout his life, Neil always demonstrated an enduring commitment to his family, Wyoming, and our Nation. He loved his family. He loved his home State of Wyoming. He loved his country. Ann Chambers Noble, a Wyoming author, recently wrote Neil's biography, ``Hurry McMurry: W.N. `Neil' McMurry, Wyoming Entrepreneur.'' The title appropriately describes this extraordinary man. He grew up during the Great Depression, and saw firsthand the impact it had on his community. In 1941, Neil joined the U.S. Army Air Corps. He flew over 29 missions in Europe as a turret gunner on a B-17 aircraft during World War II. Following his brave service to our Nation, Neil returned to Wyoming to raise a family and start a very successful business career. Neil was a man with determination, integrity, and a strong work ethic. He recognized the vast opportunities and great potential Wyoming has to offer. In 1949, he saw opportunity in constructing roads and highways across Wyoming. Along with his business partner, Vern Rissler, the Rissler-McMurry Company became one of the largest highway construction companies in Wyoming. The company built much of Wyoming's transportation routes. While many people would have retired after running a successful contracting firm for over three decades, Neil was on the lookout for new opportunities. Neil and his business partners, John Martin and Mick McMurry, had a hunch that significant natural gas was in the Jonah Field in southwest Wyoming. In 1991, the McMurry Oil Company purchased wells and mineral leases in the Jonah area. His vision and willingness to take a risk turned into a natural gas play of historic proportions. Neil McMurry will be remembered for his successful business endeavors that created thousands of jobs for the people in Wyoming. His efforts and entrepreneurial spirit significantly impacted Wyoming's economy. While his business abilities will continue to be admired, it will be his selfless devotion to others and his willingness to give back to his community that will forever keep his memory in the hearts of the people of Wyoming. His charitable donations made a difference in the lives of people in his community. Even though he lived a long life, Neil left us too soon. His remarkable contributions to the youth of Wyoming will be honored on August 7 by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming. While this would have been just one of many honors, it was very special to Neil. Through the generosity of the McMurry Foundation, Neil and his family have given unprecedented levels of support to Wyoming organizations particularly organizations supporting our youth. My wife Bobbi and I will truly miss him. We are blessed that Neil was our friend and grateful for the moments we spent together. During this time of such great loss, we find solace in knowing that the legacy of Neil McMurry will live on. Bobbi and I extend our deepest sympathy to the McMurry family. We wish his family all of our best and send our prayers to each of them.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kelly Curuchet for her hard work as an intern for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office. Kelly is a native of Kaycee, WY, and a graduate of Kaycee High School. She recently graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she majored in business administration and minored in professional writing. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Kelly 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 Ben Nelson 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 the State of Wyoming. Ben is a native of Torrington, WY and a graduate of Torrington High School. He recently studied Interdisciplinary Studies at Eastern Wyoming College and will soon be a student at the University of Wyoming, where he will major in Political 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 thank Ben 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. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I do week after week since the health care law was passed, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law that I believe is bad for patients, bad for the providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and terrible for the American taxpayers. I come to the floor today reminding myself and the Senate of some promises the President made during the health care debate. The President had a couple of key promises. The first was he stated that health insurance premiums would go down. The second promise he made was that if a person likes their insurance plan, they can keep it. The President actually reiterated the second point after the Supreme Court issued its decision regarding the health care law a few weeks ago. From the East Room of the White House, the President proclaimed: If you're one of the 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. Perhaps the President does not know that his health care law has already forced many colleges and universities to stop offering their student health plans or perhaps the President is unaware that one can no longer purchase a child-only health insurance policy in many States, including my home State of Wyoming. Apparently, the President has not spoken to businesses across the country that must actually deal with the ramifications of his health care law. I speak with business owners around Wyoming every weekend as I travel around the State, and the people with whom I speak believe the law will increase the cost of their insurance, increase the cost of their care, and make it more difficult for them to provide insurance for their employees. Now we have a new study--a report that has come out from the Deloitte consulting firm--and it has spoken to businesses all across the country about the law. The results were compiled in their 2012 survey of employers. In this report, the company did random surveys of 560 companies with 50 or more employees. These results are only from companies that currently offer health insurance to their employees. So what are the results? Well, the results are not encouraging. They found that approximately 1 in 10 employers is considering dropping the health coverage they currently supply to their employees over the next few years. Specifically, they found that 9 percent of companies expect to drop their insurance coverage, while another 10 percent of respondents said they weren't sure about how they would proceed. The survey revealed that small businesses--those with between 50 and 100 workers--are going to be hit especially hard by this new health care law. Thirteen percent of the businesses in this category stated they would drop their insurance coverage in the next 1 to 3 years. Thirteen percent of all of those small businesses with between 50 and 100 employees plan to drop their insurance within 1 to 3 years. Keep in mind that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did some evaluations and thought that only 7 percent of workers would lose their employer-provided health insurance starting in 2014 because the President, looking straight into the camera straight from the White House, said, ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' Companies also made it clear that how implementation of the health care law moves forward would impact their decisions. How so? Here is an example: Approximately one-third of the companies stated they might decide to stop offering health insurance if they find that the law passed by the Democrats in this Senate, along partisan lines--if these companies find that the health insurance under the law and required by the law requires them to offer more generous benefits than they currently provide, they are likely--one-third--to discontinue providing health insurance. Why is that? Well, it is because the President's health care law actually mandates what kind of insurance companies must give to their employees. This is what is called the essential health benefits package or, as most Americans refer to it, government-approved insurance. It may not be the insurance you want or the insurance you like; it may not be the insurance you need or it may not be the insurance you can afford. No matter how we look at it, the President and those who supported this law say they know better than American consumers, American workers, and people in need of insurance. So instead of allowing businesses and workers to decide what kind of insurance they need, the health care law empowers Federal bureaucrats to make this decision. In an article that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the chief financial officer of McDonald's stated that he thought implementing the health care law could cost his company more than $400 million a year. So businesses that decide they can't afford to offer this government-approved insurance are going to be forced to pay a penalty. How big is the penalty? That is a legitimate question. The Supreme Court says it is a tax--a tax. So they are going to have to pay a tax. So for companies with over 50 employees, they will have to pay, starting at $2,000 per worker. That sounds like a lot of money, but keep this in mind: In 2011 the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average cost of employer-provided health insurance for families was over $15,000. So they can decide: Do they pay the government $2,000, that tax, or do they pay $15,000 for the insurance? This means many companies would have a sizable financial incentive to simply drop the insurance. So then what happens? What happens to these folks who previously had the insurance the President said they could keep? Of course, we all know they can't because, once again, the President misled the American people--I believe intentionally. Well, then these employees who were dropped would have to enroll in a government-run exchange. So what happens in the exchange? Well, many of these individuals would qualify for subsidies from the Federal Government to help them purchase insurance--subsidies from the Federal Government to help them pay for insurance that they were previously getting at work, but now because of the health care law they can't get it anymore. So who is going to end up subsidizing this? The American taxpayers are now going to be paying for the health insurance instead of the employer. This is not only going to cause many Americans to lose their health insurance, but it will also make the $1 trillion health care law even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office said this past week. Many businesses surveyed stated they do not intend on dumping the health insurance plans, but they said something else. They said they are not going to stop providing it. Instead, employers are saying to workers: If you want to keep this, you are going to have to pick up the additional cost of your insurance coverage, and you are going to have to do it by helping to pay higher copays, higher deductibles, or participating and contributing to the higher premiums we are going to have to pay. So for those Americans lucky enough to keep their employer-provided coverage, they will now be paying more money for that privilege. This means employees have essentially two alternatives under this health care law. Either they will lose their employer-provided coverage or they will be facing higher insurance premiums. For over 150 million Americans who receive their insurance through their employer, neither of these choices is a good one. It didn't have to be this way. That is why I remain committed to repealing the President's health care law and replacing it with patient-centered reforms that will allow patients to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, never in my life would I expect to see the U.S. Department of Agriculture come out against farming, ranching, agriculture, and its products. I was talking to a radio station this morning in Afton, WY. They were astonished. They had not heard the news of this yet, and they are now fully aware of it. They are grateful to the Senator from Kansas because one of those involved actually had heard the Senator on the floor last night talking about Meatless Mondays and then the USDA linking ranching and farming to climate change. It is not just cattle or beef producers--and beef is clearly the No. 1 cash crop for Wyoming--but the USDA has gone after dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as part of a climate change issue. So this does seem to be an assault against a way of life, a significant part of our country's heritage, as well as our economic future. We see this assault on our products through the Department of Agriculture. We see it as an assault on family values of young families working together, as we have seen with the Department of Labor. And now yesterday, with a vote on this Senate floor, there was an attack by a reinstitution of the death tax. People are trying to keep a family operation within the family, a ranch or a farm, all across rural America. These small businesses in communities all across the country are finding that it is going to be much more difficult, under what the Democrats voted for yesterday, to keep their ranches and farms in the family. I know farmers and ranchers in Wyoming where a member of the family works in town just to make the money to pay the expenses of keeping the operation of the farm or the ranch going. They know full well that under the Democratic proposal, if someone were to die, once that becomes the case, their chances of being able to hold on to that operation are reduced to almost nothing. Bringing back the costs of the death tax to the levels of the Clinton administration, anything over $1 million in assessed value would be taxed at 55 percent. The only solution for many is to sell. There are three specific attacks: the death tax attack, the Meatless Monday attack, and the attack on children helping out on the family or neighbor farm or ranch. There are values that they learn through the FFA. All of those things make me wonder in what direction the country is heading. I guess that is no surprise when only one in three Americans all across the country think the country is heading in the right direction. I am happy to join my colleague from Kansas who came to the Senate floor yesterday to bring this to the attention of the Senate. He and I are working together to now address the Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again and to make sure that the Secretary does insist that farmers and ranchers across this country--and the products that they make and should be promoted by the Department of Agriculture--receive the proper honor that is deserved by them for what they do to continue to put food on the table and continue to bring forth the values from those who built this great country. I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Kansas, for bringing this to the attention of the Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Shawna Praeuner 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. Shawna is a native of Newcastle, WY and a graduate of Newcastle High School. She recently graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she is majored in Agricultural Communications and Marketing. 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 thank Shawna 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 Charlie Rollino for his hard work as an intern for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office. Charlie is from Lander, WY and a graduate of Mother of Divine Grace High School. He is a student at Christendom College where he is majoring in History and Political Science. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I thank Charlie 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 Brianna Straub for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Brianna is a native of Kaycee, WY and a graduate of Kaycee High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in communications. 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 thank Brianna 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 Thomas Sullivan for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office. Thomas is a native of Laramie, WY where he was homeschooled. He graduated from the University of Northern Colorado where he majored in business administration and accounting. 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 thank Thomas 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 David Wise for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. David is a native of McLean, VA and graduated from Langley High School. He attends Clemson University where he is majoring in political science. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank David 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 wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Ana Katz for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ana is a native of Casper, WY, and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends the University of California, San Diego, where she is majoring in political science and history and minoring in environmental studies. 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 Ana 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 Natalya Wolfley for her hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Natalya is a native of Etna, WY, and a graduate of Star Valley High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in international relations and minoring in international business and Chinese. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Natalya 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 wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Katrina Cobb for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Katrina is a native of Mills, WY and a graduate of Booker High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming where she is majoring in economics and minoring in psychology. 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 wish to thank Katrina 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 rise today to honor an accomplished diplomat and distinguished public servant, Ambassador L. Bruce Laingen. On August 6, Bruce will celebrate his 90th birthday. I want to take this momentous occasion to reflect on his contributions and efforts in support of our Nation. Despite the personal sacrifice, Bruce honorably served the United States with expert skill and dedication throughout his long career. Bruce was born and raised on a farm in southern Minnesota. He joined the U.S. Navy, and served our Nation during World War II. Bruce received his officer training at Wellesley College in 1943, and attended the University of Dubuque in Iowa for general Naval training. He was a commissioned officer in the Naval Supply Corps. Bruce served in the Pacific with amphibious forces in the Philippine campaigns. After World War II, Bruce graduated from St. Olaf College in Minnesota in 1947. He went on to further his education at the University of Minnesota, where he received a Master's degree in International Relations in 1949. As a result of his passion and interest in what was happening across the globe, Bruce dedicated 38 years to the Foreign Service. He joined the Foreign Service in 1949, and served this Nation across the world in Germany, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The United States was very fortunate to have Bruce serve as U.S. Ambassador to Malta from 1977 to 1979. In June 1979, Bruce returned to Iran to serve as the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in the wake of the Iranian revolution. Within a few months of his arrival, a group of demonstrators took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The students and militants were protesting the United States' relationship with the government of Iran and the Shah's entry into the United States on humanitarian grounds. On November 4, 1979, Bruce was taken hostage along with more than 60 other Americans. For a total of 444 days, he and 51 other Americans were held hostage in Iran. Throughout the entire ordeal, he worked diligently to protect the hostages and resolve the crisis. He showed true professionalism and strength. In his book Yellow Ribbon: The Secret Journal of Bruce Laingen, Bruce describes his personal perspective and thoughts about the events that took place over those 444 days. Shortly after Bruce's capture, his wife Penelope ``Penne'' Laingen tied a yellow ribbon around an oak tree on their lawn in Maryland to symbolize her hope for a safe return for her husband and all of the hostages. Penne encouraged others to show their support and determination to be reunited with their loved ones through the use of yellow ribbons. The original yellow ribbon was later donated to the Library of Congress. It is because of her efforts that Penne is credited with founding the yellow ribbon campaign during the Iran hostage crisis. After his release, Bruce became the Vice President of the National Defense University until he retired from the Foreign Service in 1987. He went on to be the Executive Director of the National Commission on Public Service from 1987 until 1990. Between 1991 and 2006, Bruce was President of the American Academy of Diplomacy. Bruce continued to share his expertise and knowledge through his efforts on several distinguished Boards of Directors including No Greater Love, A Presidential Classroom for Young Americans, the Mercersburg Academy in Pennsylvania, and the National Defense University Foundation. I had the honor of working with Bruce on the Board of Directors of the Presidential Classroom. He has been a strong advocate for this wonderful program, which encourages students to learn about how their government works and aspire to leadership through public service. Bruce has received many honors as a result of his brave service to our Nation. He was awarded the Department of State's Award for Valor, the Department of Defense's Distinguished Public Service Medal, the Presidential Meritorious Award, and the Foreign Service Cup. I am grateful for his willingness to serve our Nation and provide strong leadership in implementing the foreign policy goals of the United States. Bruce, Penne, and their three sons Bill, Chip, and Jim have given so much to our Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kaiser Mock 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. Kaiser is a native of Gillette, WY, and a graduate of Campbell County High School. He is a student at Michigan State University where he is majoring in Accounting. 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 Kaiser 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, to follow up on that, clearly in the great State of Wyoming there are lots of farmers and lots of ranchers. It is our heritage, it is our economy, it is our future. Many people--we talked a little bit about that--to keep these operations going actually have a job in town so they can make enough money to help pay the mortgage and keep things going. But the price of land continues to go up, and on paper they have quite a bit of resources. So to think that we are in the next hour going to vote on a proposal by the Democrats to bring back the death tax is something that should be a surprise to all Americans. It is to farmers and ranchers and all small business owners. I think of the movie theater owner in Casper I have known for over 20 years. I have operated on him, fixed his ankle when he broke it. He started with one small theater. He was the guy taking tickets, making the popcorn. Other people near him helped out and made it all work. He expanded to a second movie theater, and then again and again. He built the buildings, he built the business. He made it work. He was there early. He was there late. He was there with a broom. But when I hear the President say, If you have a business, you didn't build it; someone else did, I ask the President to come to Casper, WY, to meet the business owners there, meet the guy who has a dry cleaners, meet the florist, meet the person with the car wash, meet this owner of the movie theaters, and then go around the community and the outskirts of the area to take a look at rural Wyoming, at the ranchers and farmers, and hear their stories, hear of their life's work, hear about what they have put together. To see a proposal on the floor of the Senate that says, We don't care what you did, how hard you worked, what the impact is going to be on leaving this legacy to your family, we are going to bring back the death tax and we are coming for you. It is something that people back home, in all of rural America--and I would think in many places around the country--would find shocking, astonishing, and very sad as a commentary of what role Washington and government is trying to impose upon their lives, to take these levels of taxation to much higher levels where the death tax hits at $1 million and 55 percent at that level, from where we are now, where it is at $5 million and indexed for inflation because we see inflation and a maximum of 35 percent. I am astonished that people would actually consider voting for that. But yet that is what the Senate majority leader has been proposing, and that is what we are going to vote on within the next hour. It is interesting, I was driving through the Hot Springs County, Thermopolis, WY, area a couple of years ago talking to a farmer. He said, You know, I could fight the weather or I could fight the government, but I couldn't fight both. And he got out of it. A lot of families haven't gotten out, and they continue. Now, once again, the heavy hand of government comes with this crushing blow in wanting to raise this sort of tax on families all across the country, on people who have built their own businesses. In spite of what the President may say, these are the people who made this happen. After the President's comments last week, I was in Thermopolis for a class reunion over the weekend. They have all the different classes come together for a big picnic and cookout in the park. My mother-in- law is a member of a class that graduated quite a few years ago. It was her reunion as well. We were talking about the family bakery that she had worked at as a little girl. The family actually lived above the bakery. They got their food from the bakery because they ate what didn't get sold. They worked every day. She talked about her father working so very early in the morning, through the day. For lunch she walked home from school to be able to eat at the bakery. That is a family who built that business. We talked about it, and I asked, Well, who else worked there? She started to run through the names of the people in the family who built and contributed to this bakery business called the Wigwam in Thermopolis, WY. She talked about Sonny who had worked there. There are a lot of businesses and a lot of farms and a lot of ranches--I see my friend and colleague from Kansas here--where there was a Sonny who worked on that farm or on that ranch. Who else worked there in the bakery? Well, Shorty worked there too. I think every community has a Shorty who worked in a business that made something happen. I said: Who else? She said: Sandy. I know there is a Sandy in every community. Yet the President thinks they didn't do anything. Who else? Smokey. We have all these different names of people in the family who made this business, helped to put it together, and built it. Those are the people who made this business. Those are the people the President seems to have forgotten or never met in the first place. Those are the people who built the businesses of this country. It wasn't somebody else; it was them. It was parents who got up early and worked hard. Their kids worked there too. Everyone in the family participated. Everyone contributed. Every community in this country has someone like that. Now to see the Democrats coming forth with a proposal that says: You may have built a business--well, they may not believe that family actually built the business--and we just want to tax you more when the person who really put the sweat equity into it dies. The family maybe ends up having to sell, as we heard from the Senators from Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Why? A lot of it is because this institution can't control the spending, so they are always looking for new ways to tax other people. The problem is not that we are taxed too little; it is that we spend too much in this institution. Congress spends too much, and the President always seems to find another way to spend more money. That is what we see, ways to continue to find money and then spend, borrow, and grow government bigger and bigger. That is not what built this country. That is not what made this country great. It was the families with ranches, farms, and small businesses all across this country who put in hard work, dedication, and commitment to getting up early in the morning, working all day long and well into the evening. I ask my friend and colleague from Kansas, I am sure the Senator can think of families and picture those families where folks actually got up before sunrise and worked through the end of the day and after the Sun went down to building something, to make something of themselves and their family, and to contribute to the community. Now we see government with its heavy hand coming to say: The death tax is here. We want to raise the death tax, and we are coming for you.

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