John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it has been more than 30 years since I was in medical school, but I still remember the day my classmates and I stood to recite the Hippocratic Oath. That is an oath which has guided doctors for centuries. At its simplest, it can be boiled down to a single phrase: First, do no harm. I was reminded of that last week when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Senate Banking Committee, speaking about the approach Washington should take toward healing our sick economy. He said: Do no harm. Well, that is good advice for Senators and for Presidents, just as it is good advice for doctors. The problem is that we have a President in the White House and Democrats in Congress who don't believe it and don't act that way. Day after day, as the President makes one policy decision after another, his policies do harm to the American economy and to the American people. Just look at how sick our economy has gotten since President Obama took office. The Federal Reserve projects that the gross domestic product will grow by as little as 1.6 percent this year. That is not nearly good enough to give us the healthy economy we need. The other night, ``CBS Evening News'' opened with this summary: ``This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had.'' That is what they said--the worst. Every other President has been able to bounce back from tough economic times. Not President Obama. Why is that? Why is our private sector economy sicker today than it was when the President took his oath of office? The Economist magazine put it this way. It gave a characterization of the President as someone ``who has regulated to death a private sector he neither likes nor understands.'' And I agree. Look at the President's own words. He said that while government bureaucrats were struggling, the private sector is doing just fine. Doing just fine? It has gotten worse. Because of President Obama's failed economic policies, more than 23 million Americans are now either unemployed or underemployed. I think those 23 million people would say to President Obama: Do no harm. We have now had 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent. Our economy created just 80,000 jobs last month--just 80,000 jobs. More people last month signed up for Social Security disability benefits than got a job. That is not doing just fine. Look at what else the President said recently about small business owners. He said: If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. I know a lot of small business owners who would say they worked extremely hard to build their own businesses. Farmers and ranchers work from sunup to past sundown, and everyone in the family works to keep the operation going. The corner drycleaner is trying to keep his doors open in tough economic times. The florist is trying to avoid laying off another salesperson in the shop. Where I live, in Casper, WY, most of the businesses we have are small businesses. They were started by men and women with dreams and with determination. These people aren't looking for a government handout, but they don't think their government should be hostile toward them. They work hard every day. They have worked hard to build their businesses and have tried to expand and create jobs in the community. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that. That is why, instead of doing all he can to help small businesses, he is burying them under more regulations, under more redtape, and under threats of increased taxes. Democrats here in Washington like to say they are in favor of creating jobs, but then they turn around and do the very things that hurt the people who create the jobs in this country. Washington has already put out more than 36,000 pages of new regulations just since January of this year. If small business owners could talk to the President, I think they would tell him they do not need more paperwork. They would tell him: Mr. President, do no harm. The damage President Obama's policies have done to our economy so far is terrible, and it is likely to get worse. We know the President's policies are holding back our economy from the type of normal recovery we have had from other recessions in the past. Even worse, he is paying for his failed policies by piling an unprecedented amount of debt on future generations. Today, our national debt is $16 trillion. In just 3\1/2\ years, President Obama has managed to waste more taxpayer money than any other President, in my opinion, in American history. Previous Presidents understood the danger of spending more than we can afford. President John Kennedy said: Persistently large deficits would endanger our economic growth and our military and defense commitments abroad. President Kennedy made that statement 50 years ago--in 1962. At the time he made that statement 50 years ago, Washington's budget deficit that year was $7 billion. So we have gone from $7 billion 50 years ago to a projected deficit of $1,200 billion this year--from $7 billion to $1,200 billion. That is 170 times greater. Has anything else increased that fast in the past 50 years in terms of expenses on anything--a daily newspaper or a bottle of Coke, which would have cost 10 cents in 1962? Using this multiplier of 170 times, that would be $17 today if it had increased at the same rate as our Nation's deficit. And gasoline was about 30 cents a gallon back then. It would have to be more than $50 a gallon today. Look at it a different way. The share of Washington's total debt that is owed by every man woman and child in America today is almost $51,000. The President is saddling our children with debt to pay bills we can't afford for policies that don't work and for goals the American people don't support. The President demonstrates no sincere interest in cutting government spending, even as the Federal Government has grown less efficient, less effective, and less accountable. The American people look at Washington's out- of-control spending and debt, and their message to President Obama is this: Please, Mr. President, stop doing harm. Remember, President Obama has been quite clear. He doesn't respect small businesses, and he thinks the private sector is doing fine. He has increased redtape, increased bureaucracy, and he has mortgaged America's future to give taxpayer dollars to his campaign contributors--to companies such as Solyndra. When he has borrowed all he can--lots of it from China--he still doesn't slow down his spending. He says he needs to raise taxes to spend even more. The President already raised taxes through his health care plan. He pushed through $\1/2\ trillion in taxes and fees. He pushed his individual mandate tax to force people to buy insurance. Now he is pushing again to impose massive new tax hikes on millions of successful families and small businesses. The additional damage President Obama would do to our economy with his proposals to raise additional taxes would be enormous. Now, that is not only my opinion; others agree. The accounting firm of Ernst & Young did a study of the President's plan and found it would wipe out 710,000 jobs. Middle-class workers who keep their jobs would see their wages go down. And 2.1 million business owners would be hit with higher taxes. That means less money left to expand and less money left to hire additional workers. Again, you can't be for jobs and against the people who create the jobs. In short, as weak as our economic recovery has been these past 3 years--the worst ever, as reported in the news--the President's tax increases would make matters worse. Just look again at the difference between President Obama and a different Democratic President--John Kennedy. John Kennedy said: The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources, and to a higher rate of economic growth, is the unrealistically heavy drag of Federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative, and incentive. This lesson from President Kennedy is lost on President Obama. The only solution President Obama seems to see is to raise taxes and to raise them most on the very people and businesses we need to lead us to prosperity and economic recovery. Remember the words President Obama used when he was running for President in 2008. He said that even if his tax increases led to less revenue for the government--that is what he said, even if his tax increases led to less revenue for the government--he would raise taxes anyway as a matter of fairness. Fairness? Fairness? What about doing what is best for the country? As an orthopedic surgeon, when someone came to me with a broken leg, I would try to fix it. You don't break someone else's leg so the two people would then be equal and both would have broken legs. The President is promoting his vision of fairness over good common sense. The American people know those who work hard and take risks should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They should not have to suffer more angry attacks by the President and by Democrats in Washington. The American way should be to promote success, not to punish it. President Obama should abandon his misguided agenda to replace the long-held American value of equal opportunity with the President's own desire for equal outcomes regardless of effort. Before he makes things even worse, he should stop and he should do no harm. Finally, I would like to address one last issue where I think the Democrats in Congress and the White House need to reverse course. Our country faces what has been called a fiscal cliff. Unless Washington acts in January, taxes will increase across the board--not just on small businesses but on middle-class families and even low-income people. Republicans in the House have already voted to approve long- term spending cuts. This month they will vote to stop the tax increases. And Republicans have a plan to create a healthier economy by making our Tax Code simpler, flatter, and fairer for all Americans. What happens next is in the hands of the Democrats in the Senate. Financial experts have warned that if Senate Democrats do not act by the end of this year, they could create a worldwide recession. This is very serious harm. Democrats appear to be ready to do it. The Senate Democratic leadership has made clear that they would let the country go over the fiscal cliff rather than compromise on tax hikes. President Obama recently said the same thing. He said that if Congress passes reasonable regulation that keeps tax rates where they are--even temporarily, he said, while we sort out long-term tax reform--he would veto that. He would raise everyone's taxes and risk another worldwide recession. I ask the President to look at what he is saying and stop threatening grave damage to America in reckless pursuit of his political agenda. Mr. President, do no harm. Those words that sum up the Hippocratic Oath ring true for so many people across America today, for people who believe, as Ronald Reagan said, that government should stand by our side, not ride on our back. It is time for Washington to change direction, to lower taxes, not raise them; to reduce redtape, not increase it; to control our spending, not rack up more debt; to free the entrepreneurial spirit, not stifle it. First, before all else, if we are to heal our sick economy, it is a time for Washington to do no harm. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I do each week, as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, taking care of so many families there, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law that has now been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. Although it may not be unconstitutional, it is still unworkable, it is unaffordable, and it is very unpopular. Today I wish to talk about one of the specific components of the health care law; that is, the issue of Medicaid expansion. Most of the discussion of the Supreme Court's health care decision has been focused on the individual mandate, that incredibly unpopular portion of the law that forces every American to buy a government- approved product, government-approved health insurance. The Supreme Court has ruled it a tax. It is a tax. Still, the American people know it is a mandate coming out of Washington that they buy a government- approved product for the first time ever in American history. Today I would like to talk about another important part, which is the Supreme Court's ruling that the law's Medicaid mandate is unconstitutional. As many Americans know, Medicaid is a government program that is jointly funded between States and the Federal Government. The President's health care law contained a huge expansion of Medicaid, and more than half of the new insurance coverage provided by the health care law was supposed to be delivered through the Medicaid Program. The President's health care law forces States to expand their Medicaid eligibility or face the loss of all of their Medicaid matching funds. Currently, the States put up some money, and the Federal Government puts up some--it varies from State to State. In my State of Wyoming, the State puts up half, the Federal Government puts up half, and 15 States are in that 50-50 range. In some States, it goes up to 70 cents from the Federal Government and 30 cents from the State. Across the board, the average is about 57 cents from Washington, 43 cents from the home State. Many States believed that this expansion, this forced expansion, this forced mandate on them was unconstitutional, that it was expensive, and that it would essentially leave States with no choice but to participate in the program. That is why 26 different States filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government to stop this massive Medicaid overreach. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and a majority of Justices agreed with the States. Chief Justice Roberts described the Medicaid expansion as a ``gun to the head'' that would leave States no choice but to participate in the program. The decision of the Supreme Court made clear that States cannot be forced by Washington--cannot be forced by Washington--to participate in the health care law's Medicare expansion. In response, after the Supreme Court announced its decision, a reporter asked senior White House officials how they would entice States to participate. According to Kaiser Health News, the White House officials responded with laughter. Apparently it seemed almost inconceivable to these White House officials that States would want to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. In fact, Washington Democrats have argued that it is a good deal for States since the Federal Government is paying for the entire expansion through 2017, and then it will cover 90 percent of the cost of the States. But, again, that is not of all of the people on Medicaid, that is only of these newly eligible individuals. Never mind that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the Medicaid expansion would cost the Federal Government over $900 billion between 2014 and 2022. Apparently Washington Democrats, who have not passed a budget--Members of this Senate--in over 3 years, believe the Federal Government has extra money to spend. It is completely irresponsible. While this might be a laughing matter for the White House, people who work in State governments take this issue much more seriously. The concerns of Governors of both parties was recently highlighted in a Washington Post article. Not only are Republican Governors concerned about the expansion, but at least seven Democratic Governors have been noncommittal about expanding the program in their own States as well. Governors are concerned because they know Medicaid has been the fastest growing part of the State budget for over the past decade. In fact, Medicaid spending has expanded twice as fast as spending on education, and this is according to the bipartisan National Governors Association. In addition, State leaders worry that the Federal Government will not keep the promises Washington has made to the States regarding Medicaid's payment rates. The Wall Street Journal referred to the matching rate this way: This 100 percent matching rate is like a subprime loan with a teaser rate and a balloon payment. When asked to comment about the Medicaid expansion, Jay Nixon, the Governor of Missouri, who is a Democrat, said: This deals with hundreds of thousands of Missourians, it deals with their health care . . . He went on to say: . . . it deals with billions of dollars, and we will be involved in the process that defines the best fit for our state and respects the sovereignty of our state and the individuality of our state. Brian Schweitzer, Democratic Governor of Montana, put it best when he said: Unlike the Federal Government, Montana just can't print money. We have a budget surplus and we are going to keep it that way. Unlike this current administration, Governors of both parties recognize the importance of controlling government spending. Washington cannot expect States to simply trust that the money will come through in the future. States basically do not trust Washington, and they are right to not trust Washington. States and Governors across the country are much smarter than trusting Washington. It did not have to be this way. If the White House and Democrats in Congress had actually focused on lowering costs--that was supposed to be the concern of the health care law, lowering the cost of care--if the White House and Democrats in Congress had actually focused on lowering the cost of care, States now would not be facing this bad choice. We need to repeal this bad health care law. We need to replace it with legislation that will make it easier for States to work with Washington without going bankrupt. We need to move forward. We need to move forward with legislation that will allow Americans to get what they have been looking for, which is the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. I point out that the Republican Governors Association has a lot of questions about this Medicaid expansion. As a matter of fact, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, sent a letter to the President seeking answers to a number of questions dealing with Medicaid and dealing with the exchanges that are part of this health care law. There are 30 specific questions in the letter Governor McDonnell sent. I suggest that possibly the President has not thought of these issues as they relate to the health care law and does not have answers. But these are answers Governors of both parties continue to seek because they want to know what the impact of this Medicaid expansion is going to be on their own States and their own budgets. The health care law may not be unconstitutional. It continues to be unworkable, it continues to be unaffordable, and it continues to be unpopular. You say: How unpopular is it? In a poll done just after the Supreme Court ruling, just last week, July 9 to July 12, a Gallup Poll talked to Republicans, they talked to Democrats, but then they focused on the Independents, and what they have shown is, of Independents in this country, how they think this health care law will affect different components of our society. They think it will actually make things worse for doctors, make things worse for people who currently have health insurance, they think it will make things worse for hospitals, they think it will make things worse for businesses, it will make things worse for taxpayers and, most importantly, they believe it will make things worse for them personally. That is where we are today, which is why we need to repeal and replace this health care law. My advice to Governors around the country would be to wait a minute until after the election to decide what you want to do about Medicaid expansion because we are continuing to work to repeal and replace this broken health care law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I do week after week, ever since the President's health care law has been passed, to offer a doctor's second opinion about this health care law, which I believe is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and terrible for taxpayers. We saw the Supreme Court issue its historic decision on the President's health care law. The Court confirmed that the individual mandate in the President's health care law is a tax. The President said it was not a tax. I will just say the Supreme Court confirmed that it is in fact a tax. The decision makes it clear that the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, will now play an unprecedented role in America's health care system. That is not something American citizens have asked for or want, but it is something many American citizens fear. Recently, the Associated Press highlighted this concern in an article titled, ``Tax Man Cometh to Police You on Health Care.'' ``Tax Man Cometh to Police You on Health Care.'' The article points out that the health care law contains the largest set of tax changes in more than 20 years. To be specific, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there are at least 18 separate taxes contained in the health care law. These taxes are expected to cost taxpayers more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. The Associated Press points out that the IRS is expected to spend over $880 million just to implement the law from 2010 to 2013, and to do this they are going to hire more than 2,700 new government workers. This could be just the tip of the iceberg. According to a report issued by the House Ways and Means Committee, the Internal Revenue Service may need as many as 16,500 additional bureaucrats to enforce the President's health care law--now the President's health care tax. One of these taxes the agents are going to be enforcing is something called the individual mandate. This is the part of the law that forces every American to have health insurance. If they do not have it, the law forces them to purchase health insurance--and not just any health insurance. No, no, not at all. They need to purchase government- approved health insurance. This is not necessarily something this family thinks is right for them and their needs and their insurance and their family. No, that is not good enough. They have to purchase government-approved insurance, and the IRS is going to check on them to make sure they do. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of those forced to pay the tax will be people making less than $120,000 a year. President Obama repeatedly promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Specifically, he promised that no family making less than $250,000 a year would see any form of tax increase. Let me just quote. The President of the United States said: I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase . . . The President went on to say ``not your income tax.'' He said ``not your payroll tax.'' He said ``not your capital gains tax.'' He finished it by saying ``not any of your taxes.'' But when the President's lawyers went before the Supreme Court, they did just the opposite. They argued that this mandate was indeed a tax. The Solicitor General even stated that the Court had an obligation to construe the mandate as a tax. He said it could be upheld on that basis. As it turns out, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but only because it is a tax. In short, the Supreme Court confirmed that the President has broken his promise to middle-class families; and it is the promise that he made to not raise taxes. In fact, the President's individual mandate tax will produce more tax revenue for the government than the so-called Buffett rule that this administration has been supporting. While supporters of the health care law may support using the IRS to scare people into getting health insurance, most Americans do not think this is the right policy for our country. Back when Congress was debating this health care law, the American people were looking for reform, health care reform that would actually lower the cost of care, not raise their taxes. They wanted a law that helped train more doctors and more nurses to take care of them, not more tax collectors to look into their life and their records. The last thing they want is the IRS breathing down their necks and banging down their doors. But that is what the American people have gotten through the President's health care law, and that is what they are stuck with unless Congress and the White House repeal and replace this flawed and failed law. As a physician with 25 years of experience taking care of families all around Wyoming, I believe there is a better way. We can implement commonsense reforms in a step-by-step way that allows people to purchase insurance across State lines, reform medical liability laws, and strengthen State high-risk pools. These simple changes will help lower the cost of care without forcing millions of Americans to live in the fear of the Internal Revenue Service. That is why I am going to continue to come to the Senate floor and call on Congress to repeal the President's health care law. It is time for Americans to get what they were looking for in the beginning but do not get as a result of the President's health care law. What they are looking for is the care they need from the doctor that they choose at a lower cost. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I second the comments of Senator Enzi. This is an egregious provision that was included at the last moment without any consultation of Senator Enzi or I. I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to address this matter before the conference report was filed, and it is essential to fix it as soon as possible preferably in a technical corrections bill that will be drafted in the coming weeks but most certainly by the end of the year. This provision is not well thought out. It has the potential to impact not only Wyoming but a number of other States as well. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fix the provision in an expeditious manner.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Evanston Roundhouse and Rail Yards. This impressive site, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is a lasting landmark and a national treasure. Evanston is truly a special place, and the railroad has had a huge impact on its history. In fact, Evanston would not exist today had it not been for the railroad. Like the rest of the area, a large part of Wyoming's development depended on migrants coming from the East. Some traveled on famous emigrant trails like the Oregon and California Trails. But many followed the train tracks as the transcontinental railroad forged a new path across the West. The transcontinental railroad had particular importance in Wyoming's development. Steam engines needed water-refilling stations, and these stations quickly became hubs of commerce in the State. Evanston was the Union Pacific's last stop in Wyoming, and its settlement depended on the railroad. In 1868, tracks finally reached Evanston, and a town of tents cropped up around the station. This prosperity was only short-lived because the managers soon ordered the station to be moved 12 miles west to Wasatch. Because of the transfer, the town's population disappeared virtually overnight. Evanston was in danger of becoming another ``end of the line'' town. Fortunately, the station moved back to Evanston later that summer--and it stayed there. The railroad provided a stable job base and nearby coal mines encouraged the settlement of the town. Just as the railroad depended on its workers, the town depended on the trains. Evanston enjoyed great success as a water-filling station. The increased production and prosperity of the Union Pacific warranted new facilities to accommodate its increased traffic. In 1871, a new roundhouse and a shop complex were constructed. The station was designated as the major Union Pacific maintenance facility between Green River, WY, and Ogden, UT. In the next 30 years, the station prospered and the town of Evanston expanded. In 1912, the Union Pacific approved additional upgrades. The construction included a new roundhouse, a state-of-the-art turntable, and electricity for the other buildings in the complex. Many technological advances eventually caught up with the station's success. The advent of diesel train engines brought the slow demise of the machine shop in Evanston, as more and more services were moved to Green River. In 1927, main operations were moved to Green River and the Evanston station opened as a reclamation plant. Here, rolling train stock and parts were repaired and refurbished for the Union Pacific. The new designation created a new era of success for the station. At its height of production, the plant employed over 300 men, making it the largest employer in Evanston. The roundhouse and its accompanying facilities were crucial to the economic independence of the town's residents. The success of the reclamation plant was enjoyed for several decades. However, in 1971, the Union Pacific closed the facility for good, due to modern production methods and lower prices for new equipment. The community had developed a strong tie to the railroad. Evanston depended on the railroad not only for jobs or economic stability, but also for its identity. After its final closure, the Union Pacific donated the rail yards to the community, creating the perfect opportunity for the community to preserve the station's legacy. Local businessmen formed a coalition to develop the area. The city of Evanston leased the facility to a number of railway companies while they created a comprehensive plan to preserve the roundhouse and rail yards. To honor and recognize the significant impact of the roundhouse and the railroad, community members turned their eyes to restoration and preservation. This historic site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985. This special designation prompted other city officials to create a plan for the preservation and renovation of the rail yards. In 1998, thanks to Federal funding and the fundraising efforts of the community, cleanup of the facilities began. The goal to preserve the structural and historical integrity of the facility was accomplished through the cooperation and passion of the entire community. Today, the Evanston Roundhouse and Rail Yards are open to the public. The recently dedicated J.T. & Phyllis Patterson Visitor Center welcomes visitors from across the country. In addition to the restoration of the original roundhouse, community leaders are working to restore the original turntable and other facilities around the plaza. Now, the machine shop is a clean, updated facility that is perfect for hosting events and meetings. And Evanston has a vision for what might follow. In the future, the city plans to move its city hall into the complex. Other ideas include plans to install a renovated dining car and to move the original water tower from Wasatch to the rail yards. Evanston and its visitors will continue to enjoy the rich history of the roundhouse thanks to the innovation of city officials and Evanston's partnership with local, State, and Federal agencies. The Evanston Roundhouse and Rail Yards is a remarkable part of Wyoming's history. In honor of its 100th anniversary, I invite my colleagues to visit this national treasure. This site is a visible reminder of the important role the railroad played in the growth and development of Evanston. I congratulate the citizens who have worked so hard to preserve the roundhouse. They should be proud to share this historic place with visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to compliment my colleague from South Dakota for his commitment and continuing focus on jobs and the economy and the impact it has on our Nation and our future. I come, as I have week after week, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law--which is, in many ways, directly tied to the economy and the economic situation that my colleague from South Dakota was commenting on. We have seen continual unemployment of over 8 percent--now 8.2 percent--with people graduating from college who can't find work are going back to live with their parents. It is because the President focused on a health care law--and the Supreme Court will rule on it tomorrow, but he focused on that instead of focusing on what people at home are concerned about: jobs and the economy, getting the economy moving again and bringing the economy back to health. A healthy economy is what people were looking for. I come to the floor to talk a bit about things that have happened since the health care law was passed, because President Obama and Democrats repeatedly promised the health care law would do several things. One, they said it would make health insurance more affordable, and they also said it would help create jobs for millions of Americans-- millions of Americans, they said. In fact, after the Senate completed passage of the health care law, Majority Leader Reid said: ``This of course is a health bill.'' He said, ``It's also a jobs bill.'' He went on. He said it was also an economic recovery bill. He said it was a deficit-reduction bill. He said it was an antidiscrimination bill. He said it was truly a bill of rights. He went on to say: ``And now it is the law of the land.'' An economic recovery bill, he said; a jobs bill, he said. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi added: ``It's about jobs.'' She said: ``In its life, health care reform would create 4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' That has not happened--another broken promise to the American people. That is why I have come to the floor week after week to point out issues with this health care law, which I continue to believe is bad for patients, bad for the providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and terrible for taxpayers. One of the key components of the health care law that the President promised would help create jobs was what he referred to as the small employer health insurance tax credit. Back in April of 2010, the President said: ``This health care tax credit is pro-jobs, it is pro- business, and it starts this year.'' In essence, the credit was supposed to offset the cost of health insurance for small businesses so they could provide insurance to their employees. The President's Council of Economic Advisers made some estimates. They estimated that about 4 million--4 million--small businesses, they said, would be eligible for the credit. The administration was so proud of the initiative that they sent out millions of postcards to small businesses. I believe they actually never read it, didn't understand it, didn't understand how it worked, because Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, stood on the floor of the Senate and said: Look at how it really works. It is not going to work the way you have described it. But, no, this administration that knows better than anyone, they were so proud of the initiative, they sent out millions of postcards. According to the IRS, 4.4 million postcards were sent out. Who paid for it? The taxpayers. Do you remember them? They are the people at home, where only one in three of them thinks the country is heading in the right direction, and so many of them believe the tax dollars they send to Washington are not being used well. The White House ignored them and urged small businesses to look at the tax credit criteria and to take advantage, they said, of the credit that would be available. So what has been the response across the country of the over 4 million small businesses that received the postcards saying, Hey, look what we are doing for you. According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, only about 170,300 employers were able to claim the credit, not 4 million. No. Of these 4 million that got the postcards, how many were able to take full advantage of the credit? Only 28,000. In other words, the credit only benefited about 4 percent of the businesses that the President promised to help. Ninety-six percent of the businesses that the President promised to help got nothing. Only 4 percent of the businesses were able to benefit at all, and even a smaller number than that were able to take full advantage. The Wall Street Journal analyzed this issue in a recent article. The article featured Michael Griffin, the owner of a small advertising agency in St. Louis, MO. Michael had this to say about the tax credit the President promised and held up as some wonderful thing he was doing: You're penalized for giving people a higher wage and more professional opportunity. Is that what the Democrat's believe, that we should penalize businesses for giving people a higher wage and more professional opportunity? Michael went on to say: I appreciate any kind of tax reduction, but I can certainly not applaud a reduction that limits growth and the opportunity for employers to pay more to their employees. But that is exactly what this tax credit did. It limits the growth of a company, and it limits the opportunity for employers to pay more to their employees. Mr. Griffin is not the only small business owner who has had problems with this tax credit, this big promise by the President. Jeffrey Berdahl, an accountant from Allentown, PA, spoke to the Associated Press about this very issue. He described the calculations required for the tax credit as ``mind-numbing.'' People pass laws here. I wonder if they read them or understand the implications. I believe they do not. He described what this Congress passed, what the President touts, as mind-numbing and also pointed out that for many of his clients--this accountant's clients--he said the money they received from the tax credit was offset by the money they had to pay their accountants to try to figure out if they could receive any of these credits. In this same AP article, Terry Gutierrez from Raleigh, NC, stated, ``In some cases, it's [the tax credit] more hassle than it's worth.'' The GAO--the Government Accountability Office--confirmed these experiences in their report. They found that many small businesses are deterred from claiming the credit. Why? Because, like so much that has come out as part of this health care law, it is so complex. The report highlighted the fact that it requires 15 separate calculations. The President sends out a postcard to 4.4 million people, paid for by the taxpayers, to say: You may get a tax credit. Ninety-six percent of the people who get the postcard end up with nothing. Why? Did anybody look at this? There are 15 separate calculations and 7 separate worksheets just to calculate the amount of the credit. The GAO was told by tax preparers that it would take their clients anywhere from 2 to 8 hours or possibly longer to gather the necessary information to just start to calculate the credit. On top of this, they found that tax preparers spent in general 3 to 5 hours calculating the credit. This from a postcard from the President that says he is going to do things for you? This is not the kind of help from Washington that small businesses are looking for or want or deserve. The American people deserve better. For all of this trouble, GAO determined that the average amount claimed per small business across the country is less than $3,000-- $2,700 is the average amount claimed. It is clear that this policy is just another broken promise of the President's health care law. Since the President recently said that the private sector is doing fine--we remember it; we have seen him from the White House giving a speech saying the private sector is doing fine--the ineffectiveness of his small business tax credits may not bother him one bit but it does bother most Americans. As I speak with my neighbors across Wyoming, I know the truth of their lives is very much different from what the President may believe. Many Americans are also concerned about the fact that bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service seem to benefit the most from the tax provisions in the law. According to the Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS will need nearly 1,300 new Federal employees in 2012 to implement the President's health care law. That is what they are asking for--1,300 new Federal employees for the IRS. In a report issued on June 14 of this year, just a week or two ago, the inspector general pointed out that enforcing the small business health insurance tax credit, he said, is one of the reasons why the Agency must expand. They need 1,300 new Federal employees so they can put forward and deal with this so-called tax credit that only 4 percent of the people whom the President said it would help have actually received any credit. And the amount they received is so very low that for most of them it was not worth even doing the paperwork. While the President and Washington Democrats may believe that adding employees to the IRS is the key to job creation, I respectfully disagree. The private sector is not fine, and the government does not need to get any bigger. This is why I have fought and will continue to fight to replace the President's health care law with real reforms that will improve competition, increase consumer choice, and lower the cost of care for all Americans. That is what this was all supposed to be about in the first place--patient-centered care; giving people the care they need from a doctor they choose, not that the government chooses, not that the insurance company chooses, but that they choose, at lower cost. That is why I come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about a health care law at a time that I still believe the health care law that the Supreme Court will rule on tomorrow is one that is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for our taxpayers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor LTC Barry Gasdek, Retired, for his decades of service to Wyoming and to America. As Walter Lippmann once said, ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on.'' In his 49 years of service to our country, Barry's proven dedication and loyalty have touched hundreds of lives. From his extensive active duty service in the U.S. Army to his quest to aid the veterans of Wyoming, Mr. Gasdek is a true Wyoming hero. Barry's path to Wyoming is similar to the historic trails that cross Wyoming's terrain--he started out in the east and eventually headed west. Barry showed the strong will and discipline of a natural born leader. Growing up in Pennsylvania, he excelled as an athlete and a scholar. He earned the rank of Eagle Scout in high school. At the Indiana University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated with a B.S. in education, he earned letters in three sports. All of these honors prepared him for a lifetime of service to his country. Barry's passion and devotion to the armed forces sparked a distinguished career with the U.S. Army. Barry started his career serving in Germany, fresh from the ROTC program, where he gained firsthand experience of Cold War tensions. Later, he was called to serve in Vietnam as the conflict there worsened. Barry proved himself in Vietnam. He flew observation missions and eventually returned for a second tour of duty. One of his commanders joked that he was like a magnet for drawing fire. Despite the adversity he faced, Barry met his challenges head-on and with fortitude. He continued his military service well after Vietnam by training to become both a Ranger and a Pathfinder and by serving at a number of Army bases around the world. He is a qualified leader, and his military achievements reflect his success. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, an award second only to the Medal of Honor. In addition, Barry received the Silver Star for his service in Vietnam, 5 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, the Soldier's Medal, the Legion of Honor, and 17 Air Medals. These awards are but a few of his military accomplishments. After many years of successfully serving his country, Barry accepted another challenge--this time in Laramie, WY. He was assigned as a professor of military science at the University of Wyoming through its Army ROTC program. Barry was a natural for the title, given his own involvement in the ROTC program in Pennsylvania. He brought the same level of talent and perseverance to this position as he did on the battlefield. For years, he encouraged his students to become our Nation's future leaders. While many would be comfortable slipping into retirement, Barry knew his mission in Wyoming had not yet been completed. This time, he took up the banner to fight for veterans' issues. He had experienced the lack of support for Vietnam's veterans, and he vowed to keep that from happening again. Barry served in leadership positions with the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. His goal was to support the State's current veterans while teaching the next generation about the important sacrifices our Armed Forces make each and every day. Eventually, his passionate advocacy led him to serve as a State veterans service officer for the Wyoming Veterans Commission, the UW Veterans Task Force, and as the Army Reserve ambassador. LTC Barry Gasdek, Retired, has devoted his entire life to serving his country, his brothers in arms, and the people of Wyoming. He is a fighter, a mentor, a teacher, and a good man. He embodies the cowboy ethics and what it means to be a citizen of Wyoming. It is certain that the legacy of his leadership will inspire new generations of brave soldiers. On behalf of the State of Wyoming and the United States of America, I thank Barry for his service. His boots will be hard to fill.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair. A Second Opinion Mr. President, I come to the floor to do what I have done week after week since the health care bill was signed into law by President Obama, to offer a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, a law that I believe is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and I believe it is terrible for the American taxpayers. I come to the floor because the Supreme Court is soon going to rule on the constitutionality of the President's health care law. The Court's decision will revolve around, primarily, the individual mandate, the component of the law requiring all individuals to purchase not just health insurance but government-approved health insurance. Never in the history of this country has the Federal Government required individuals to purchase a product, to come into our homes and tell us we must buy a government-approved product. Why? Simply because we happen to be a citizen of the United States. The American people are not happy with this mandate. As a matter of fact, a recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe the mandate is unconstitutional. The results of the Gallup poll, however, are not surprising. As I travel across Wyoming, I hear constantly from people who are opposed to the mandate. It is not just the mandate they are opposed to. But, specifically, the mandate is what brings people all across the country together to be opposed to the law. It is interesting when I go and have meetings and talk to folks. I will ask them: Under the President's health care law--remember, the one where he promised insurance rates would drop by $2,500 per family--how many of you actually believe your own insurance rates will go up, and every hand goes up. Then, when I ask: How many of you think the quality and availability of care for you and your family is going to go down, again, the hands go up. It is not just the mandate; it is the entire health care law that is a problem for patients and providers and the taxpayers. But the mandate is interesting. I bring this to the attention of the Senate because President Obama, at one point, was opposed to the mandate. When he was running for President, during his campaign for the White House, then the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, quipped: ``If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'' Now the President's tune has obviously changed. I believe the mandate is unconstitutional. I believe if the Court strikes down the mandate, the rest of the law should also be found unconstitutional. During the health care debate 2 years ago, supporters of the law repeatedly stated--repeatedly stated--that the mandate was an essential component of the law. So let's review what folks have said. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, wrote: ``Without an individual responsibility provision''--is what they called the individual mandate--the law ``doesn't work.'' The law ``doesn't work.'' Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came to this same conclusion. In two separate blog posts, she stated that without the individual mandate, the math, she said, behind the health care law does not work. The current chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, also came to this same conclusion during the debate on the health care law. During a committee hearing, Chairman Baucus stated that allowing individuals to opt out of the individual mandate would ``strike at the heart of health care reform.'' Finally, Senate Democrats in their amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court argued that the individual mandate is an ``integral part'' of the health care law. It seems to me that supporters of the law from the very beginning of this debate recognized that without the individual mandate, the rest of the health care law would need to go away. Now it seems Washington Democrats are changing their tune and coming to a different conclusion. In a story published by the Associated Press on June 18 of this year, it was reported that ``the Obama Administration plans to move ahead with major parts of the President's health care law if its most controversial provision''--obviously, the individual mandate--``does not survive.'' In fact, an anonymous, high-level Democratic official declared that the administration would move ``full speed ahead'' with implementation of the health care law. It seems the administration only views the mandate as essential when it is politically convenient. As I have stated many times before, I believe the entire health care law needs to be completely repealed and replaced. This law does not address runaway health care spending, it increases taxes, and it hurts job creation at a time of 8.2 percent unemployment across the country, at a time when college graduates are moving back home because they cannot find work, when people are underemployed, people have given up looking for work. Yet the health care law adds to the costs and adds to the uncertainty of these uncertain times and a weak economy. The American people want a healthy economy, and this health care law is making it worse. If the law's individual mandate is struck down, the President should not implement whatever is left standing. Instead, he should work with Congress--both sides of the aisle--to implement commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower the cost of health care for all Americans. It seems to be lost on many that the original goal of health care reform was actually to lower the cost of care. It is what the President talked about in his initial speech to the joint session of Congress. But it is something that was ignored when the 2,700-page health care law was presented to Congress and the American people. Americans know what they want. They know what they have been looking for in a health care law, and this is not it. Americans deserve a law that helps them get the care they need, from the doctor they choose-- not that the government chooses, not that the insurance company chooses: the doctor they choose--and at lower cost. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. In this letter, we expressed our concerns about the impending health crisis the unemployment caused by the EPA's policies is having on families, children, pregnant mothers, and on the elderly. The letter reads in part: We are writing to express our concern that the barrage of regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to end coal in American electricity generation will have a devastating effect on the health of American families. Just before you made the decision to withdraw EPA's plan to revise its ozone standard--a plan which would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs--your former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley asked the question ``What are the health impacts of unemployment?'' Today, we are requesting that you consider your former aide's question carefully: instead of putting forth rules that create great economic pain which will have a terrible effect on public health, we hope that going forward, you will work with Republicans to craft policies that achieve both environmental protection and economic growth. And that is the key--``and economic growth''--not economic destruction. The letter goes on: As you know, proponents of your EPA's aggressive agenda claim that regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket will somehow be good for the American people. We come to this issue as medical doctors and would like to offer our ``second opinion'': EPA's regulatory regime will devastate communities that rely on affordable energy, children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay for higher energy costs. The result for public health will be disastrous in ways not seen since the Great Depression. Later on in the letter we talk about the latest research on the health impacts of unemployment. A doctor from Johns Hopkins who testified last year before the Senate Environment and Public Health Committee explained that unemployment is a risk factor--a risk factor-- for elevated illness and mortality rates. In addition, the National Center for Health Statistics has found that children in poor families are four times as likely to be in bad health as other families. Economists have also studied this issue. On May 13, 2012, in the New York Times, is ``The Human Disaster Of Unemployment.'' That is what this EPA regulation is going to do today, cause additional human disaster for people out of work. We included for the President a copy of a report I have written called ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of High Unemployment.'' Studies show EPA rules cost Americans their jobs and their health. This report contains the latest research from medical professionals from Johns Hopkins, from Yale, and others that show that unemployment causes serious health impacts. Unemployment has been rampant in this country under this administration, and it has been due in many ways to the mountains of job-crushing redtape from the EPA and other agencies. The EPA's Utility MACT rule will only make things worse for hard-hit areas in the West, Midwest, and Appalachia. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 2008 Montana has lost 3,200 manufacturing jobs, Missouri 41,000, Ohio 100,000, Michigan 67,000 jobs lost, Pennsylvania 80,000, and West Virginia 7,000. Each one of these people who lost their job will be subjected to greater risks of cancer, heart attack, stroke, depression. There is a higher incidence, as we know, of spousal abuse, substance abuse in these families. As demonstrated by the latest research, their children will suffer, too, as medical costs pile up, as electricity bills to heat and cool their homes skyrocket, and the cost of everyday living continues to go up. The Utility MACT will only expose thousands more to these risks. The EPA should immediately stop pushing expensive regulations that put Americans out of work and into their doctor's office. Instead of exacerbating unemployment and harming public health, this administration and this EPA need to work with Republicans--work together in our efforts to implement policies that achieve true health benefits without destroying jobs and, indeed, American affordable energy in the process. We need to keep American energy and make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, while still keeping good-paying jobs and keeping energy prices affordable. This is a recipe for a healthier, economically stronger country. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Inhofe Utility MACT amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if the Chair would please give me a warning when 1 minute remains, I would appreciate that. Today I rise in support of the Inhofe Utility MACT resolution. This resolution protects communities and jobs in the West, the Midwest, and Appalachia, and specifically jobs that depend on coal. These communities depend on coal to heat and cool their homes at an affordable price, to power the factories where they work, and to generate revenue that creates additional jobs. We are talking about affordable domestic coal that also pays for the mortgages on the family home, the clothes and food for children, and the medical care for grandparents. If the Utility MACT rule is allowed to proceed, it would mandate that virtually no new coal-fired powerplants could be built anymore in the United States, and many still in existence would have to shut down. It is painful to think about all of the folks who will be out of work, their bills mounting, their families losing their homes, and their future looking bleak. Amazingly, the EPA does not dispute these outcomes. It does not dispute what I am saying. They know exactly what they are doing. Their ideology is more important to them than the living and breathing people of our coal communities. Just ask the EPA Region 1 Administrator Curtis Spaulding, who was visiting with a group of students in Connecticut. What he went on to talk about was the fact that basically gas plants are the performance standards, which means if you want to build a coal plant, you have a big problem. He said this was a huge decision, when he was talking about these regulations that have come out from Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA. He went on to tell this group of students that in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities that depend on coal. And to say we think those communities should go away? That is what he said. He said we have to do what the law and policy suggested. He said it was painful--it was painful every step of the way--but they did it anyway. President Obama's heavy-handed EPA admits these communities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and many other States in the West, Midwest, and Appalachia ``will just go away.'' These are chilling words. The EPA is supposed to be about protecting people, protecting their communities, protecting their environment, and protecting their health. With the Utility MACT rule, the EPA is doing the opposite. They are making communities go away. They are hurting communities--communities of families, children, seniors, gone as a result of these regulations. How could one justify these actions? Well, we are told there are enormous health benefits. They claim enormous health benefits to the public by the issuance of this rule. First of all, how do you protect something if the community is gone? So obviously these folks in West Virginia and Pennsylvania are not the beneficiaries of EPA protection. Second, the medical benefits of the rule come from reductions in particulate matter in areas of the country that are currently well within healthy thresholds set by the EPA. I will tell you, the EPA is cooking the books. No, this rule does very little to protect the public health. In fact, it creates a health crisis in this country because of the additional unemployment--the unemployment this rule is going to cause in the West, the Midwest, and in Appalachia. To highlight the point, on Monday of this week a number of us in the Senate who are physicians, who are doctors, sent a letter to President Obama. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague.

Mr. BARRASSO. I would say to my colleague, who is on the Budget Committee, who watches these things very carefully, as I look at what the President proposed, it never got to balance, it never even addressed dealing with the large deficit, let alone the monumental debt. In the time we have been talking here in the last 4 or 5 minutes, we have continued to borrow money from overseas, specifically from China. We in the United States are borrowing at a rate of $2 million a minute. Nothing I have seen coming from the President or from the Democrats, as a matter of fact, in the Senate has dealt with any of those things, to the point that we have not passed a budget for the last 3 years in this Senate, which is irresponsible.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, that is exactly the way I see it. And I voted for the plan that was submitted by the House, which actually does get to a balance of our budget, and the plans of three of our Senate colleagues from our side of the aisle whose plans also get to a balance of the budget. I voted in favor of all of those. But not one Democrat in the Senate--not one Democrat--cast one vote in favor of any one budget, whether it was a Republican budget, whether it was the President's budget. Yet the President goes to Ohio today and gives a speech for 54 minutes--and it was supposed to be a big speech on the economy--and I heard nothing new, nothing we had not heard before, no new ideas other than to spend more money, at a time when we are $15 trillion in debt, and adding to that by the minute. The President did make one interesting statement. He said some of the regulations that are coming out--he said all the regulations are not good. Well, who can do anything about it but the President; his regulations. And he has over 1,000 new regulations that have come out under his administration that are called economically significant regulations--regulations that have an impact to the economy of over $100 million. Those regulations, all of that redtape is putting people out of work. It provides so much uncertainty to the economy as to what is the next regulation that is coming out, where businesses do not have the certainty to go hire people. What is going to happen with the health care law? Is it going to be found constitutional or unconstitutional? I believe it is unconstitutional. What are the costs going to be to business? In statement after statement that the President makes, it shows there is a fundamental question as to his understanding of how the economy works versus people who have been out in the private sector who have created jobs and have put people to work, who have written the paycheck, who have signed the front of the paycheck, who have hired folks and helped the economy in a community in a way that makes a difference and builds that community. Yet I do not see those things coming out of the President's speeches, certainly not today in Ohio.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, the President of the United States earlier today was in Cleveland. He spoke for 54 minutes, yet he said almost nothing--at least certainly nothing that most of us have not heard before. It was 2 years ago this very weekend that the White House announced the start of what it referred to as the ``recovery summer.'' That campaign was an effort to convince the American people that the Obama administration's policies to create jobs were working. David Axelrod, who was the senior adviser to the President, said at the time, talking about the summer of 2010, ``This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet.'' Again, that was the summer of 2010. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, and it was entitled ``Welcome to the Recovery.'' Again, that was 2010. Now here we are, 2 years later, and Americans are still waiting for a real recovery. The ``recovery summer'' failed to produce results because it was never more than just a cheap slogan. It was designed to hide the fact that an unaccountable administration had no real solutions. Instead of working to create a healthier economy, President Obama has offered more excuses, more gimmicks, and more empty promises, and he continues to say the economy is about to turn the corner. This past March President Obama said things would get better soon. ``Day by day,'' he promised, ``we're restoring this economy from crisis.'' We have heard this all before. In February 2009 the President said his stimulus bill was ``the beginning of the first steps to set our economy on a firmer foundation, paving the way to long-term growth and prosperity.'' In April 2010 he said, ``Our economy is stronger; that economic heartbeat is growing stronger.'' In January 2011 he claimed that ``the next two years, our job now, is putting our economy into overdrive.'' Now, after disappointing jobs numbers for May of this year, when just 69,000 jobs were created, the President once again promises that ``we will come back stronger.'' It is a shame that our economy doesn't run on the President's rhetoric. Saying that things will get better does not make them better. Well, the President's record speaks for itself. For starters, we all remember early 2009 when the incoming Obama administration told the American people that its stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. That is what they said--it would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, we have now had 40 straight months, 40 consecutive months with unemployment over 8 percent. By now, unemployment was supposed to be even much better because the administration had said that by mid-2012--where we are right now, today--their projections were that unemployment would be below 6 percent if the stimulus bill passed. Well, the stimulus bill passed. I voted against it. Instead, unemployment has ticked up again in May to 8.2 percent. Last month one official at the Federal Reserve said it might take 4 to 5 more years to get unemployment down to 6 percent, which is where the President promised it would be today. The latest jobs report also said that over 23 million Americans are unemployed or are working at less of a job than what they would like. President Obama said the other day that ``the private sector is doing fine.'' He said that in a nationally televised press conference, that the private sector is doing fine. He went on to say that it was only government jobs that were lagging behind. Well, I think many of these 23 million-plus Americans who are unemployed or underemployed would absolutely disagree with this President. Under the Obama economy, since early 2009 we have lost 433,000 manufacturing jobs; 79,000 real estate jobs have been lost; and 160,000 jobs in communications industries, such as wireless carriers, have been lost. We have lost 932,000 construction jobs. These may sound like a lot of numbers upon numbers, but behind each one of these statistics is a person--a homebuilder, a phone salesman in the mall, a real estate agent in our communities--real people who have lost the private sector jobs their families rely on to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and to help their kids get through school. Many Americans have gotten so discouraged by the Obama economy that they have actually given up looking for work entirely. Those Americans who have not given up are finding it more difficult to get jobs. Even if they are trying to find a job, they are finding that their job search is taking much longer than they ever imagined. Over 5 million Americans have been searching for work for more than 27 weeks. That is over 5 million Americans who have spent more than half a year looking for work. The unemployed now spend an average of nearly 40 weeks looking for work--double the average when President Obama took office. That is the equivalent of losing a job on New Year's Day and not finding work again until October. So why are the jobs so scarce? Well, it is because President Obama's policies have done far too little to help our struggling economy, and in many cases his policies have actually hurt the economy and made things worse. Contrary to what President Obama believes, the private sector is not doing fine, and the problem is not just that we don't have enough bureaucrats. Growth in America's GDP for the first quarter of 2012 was just 1.9 percent. That is nowhere near the level we need for a healthy economy. During past recoveries from economic downturns, other Presidents have presided over much faster growth. After the recession of the early 1980s, President Reagan's economy grew much faster. Well, there is a simple reason why, and it has to do with the policies coming out of this President's administration. President Obama keeps repeating that we face economic headwinds. Well, the biggest headwinds we are facing come from the President's own economic policies. The American people understand this. They read the papers. Headlines such as the one from the Washington Post on Tuesday, just 2 days ago--``Families See Their Wealth Sapped.'' The American people read about the bad economic data saying that durable goods orders were down 3.7 percent in March. People know that when the manufacturing sector, which is an important source of jobs, slows down dramatically, it does not bode well for job growth in other sectors of the economy. When people hear this drumbeat of bad economic news, it explains why the Consumer Confidence Index fell again in May. When we ask people if the country is on the right course, the majority say it is not on the right path. When we ask if they think the President is doing a good job with the economy, they say no, he is not. Confidence is down not just because the American people follow the news and know what is going on in the country, it is because they also know what is going on in their own lives--what they are seeing at home and what they are seeing with their families. For many people, they are not earning as much as they had earned in the past. The median household income has fallen by over $4,000 since President Obama took office. Meanwhile, the actual costs of everyday living continue to rise. More and more people every day are finding that for them and for their families, they just can't keep up. Today there are more than 46 million Americans on food stamps. That is 14 million more than relied on the program in January of 2009 when President Obama was sworn into office. Sadly, the Congressional Budget Office expects the number to go even higher over the next 2 years. Well, that is obviously the wrong direction, and it is a result of bad decisions and bad policies out of the President's administration. Those policies have contributed to the lower wages we are seeing, to higher unemployment we are living with, and to more people living in poverty. Those policies are contributing as well to the sagging home markets that threaten to keep millions of American families in dire financial straits for years to come. We all know President Obama faced a difficult economic situation when he took office in 2009. His failed policies have not healed our economy. Higher taxes, more bureaucracy, more borrowing, and more wasteful spending by Washington will continue to make things worse. When we take a look at what is happening around the world, with Europe facing collapse and the global slowdown that threatens our economy, the President seems more concerned with his next election than with actually taking action to make things better. Alongside all the bad economic news, ABC News reported the other day that President Obama will continue his record-smashing fundraising schedule--record-smashing fundraising schedule. That is not the kind of leadership our economy needs today. Republicans are focused on real solutions: making our Tax Code simpler, flatter, fairer for every American; reducing the debt and the deficit; ending overregulation, the redtape that is burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming; putting patients and doctors--their own doctors--in control of health care and not creating more Washington bureaucracy; and, of course, reducing our dependency on foreign oil and sending so much American money overseas. Two years ago, when the Obama administration was putting out press releases and staging photo-ops to proclaim the ``recovery summer,'' Republicans were proposing real solutions to help create a healthy economy. When voters had a chance to compare the two approaches that November--November of 2010--Republicans earned control of the House of Representatives, and at that time they started passing a jobs agenda. Democrats in the Senate still do not get it, and they have refused to even consider these bills passed by the House. There are 27 jobs bills that have passed the House of Representatives on bipartisan votes. The bills are still today waiting for Senate action. The President of the United States remains silent on these bills that would actually get people back to work. He is offering nothing but scare tactics, excuses, and blame. He gave another speech today--this very afternoon--in Ohio and what he did was more of that: more scare tactics, excuses, and blame. Because in his mind, it seems it is always someone else's fault. Imagine where our economy would be today if Democrats had been willing to accept commonsense Republican solutions 2 years ago. We would actually be in recovery today. We would have seen significant improvements to the economy. If Democrats had been willing to work with us, instead of giving speeches and pushing more wasteful stimulus spending, millions of more people would be working today across the country. If President Obama had been focused on putting people back to work, instead of on keeping his own job, then today--today--in the summer of 2012, the private sector and the American people really would be doing fine. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Just talking about those things, isn't this the same President who lobbied this body, this Senate, to block the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have brought energy from our northern neighbor Canada to the United States, creating jobs on the ground here in terms of construction of that pipeline? So you are talking about energy, and you are talking about construction, and that was not government spending. Yet the President lobbied the Senate to block that.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I do week after week, and have since the health care bill was signed into law, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I do that as someone who practiced medicine, taking care of families all around Wyoming for about a quarter century. I continue to hear great concerns from folks back home and across the country about the health care law. So often people ask the question: Does the President understand the health care law? Well, last week President Obama shocked a lot of Americans when he made a statement--not on the teleprompter but off script--that the ``private sector was doing fine.'' He said the private sector was doing fine. He said the weaknesses in our economy had to do with State and local government. The words made it very clear to people in this country that the President is not in touch with what is happening in this country-- specifically with the economy. But then on Monday, the President said something else about the health care law that made it once again look as though he doesn't understand what is happening all across America. During an interview the President was doing with a local news reporter from Sioux City, IA, he actually was surprised to learn that his health care law is hurting small businesses--certainly hurting small businesses all across the country. He was surprised to learn of that. While the news doesn't come as a shock to most Americans, it definitely caught President Obama off guard. Here is what happened. The Iowa reporter told the President that one business in Iowa needed to ``close up shop and move the jobs back to Wisconsin'' because of the President's health care law. The President's response to the reporter I found troubling. President Obama said: Yeah, that would be kind of hard to explain, because the only folks that have been impacted in terms of the health care bill are insurance companies. The President said that the only folks--only folks--who have been impacted in terms of the health care bill are insurance companies. That is why I continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion, ever since Nancy Pelosi made the famous statement that ``first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.'' I had hoped that by now the President would actually know what is in the health care law. By his statements to this reporter in Iowa, it certainly seems to me the President does not know what is in the health care law, does not know how it is impacting jobs and the economy in the United States. How on Earth can President Obama believe insurance companies are the only people impacted by the health care law? Small businesses all across the country are being slammed by the law's expensive mandates--the mandates that people have to have government- approved insurance, which is much more expensive than what they had before. The insurance premiums that he promised would drop by $2,500 per family have actually gone up higher and faster than if the law had never been passed. The President said if you like what you have, you can keep it. We know that millions of Americans who had insurance they liked are not able to keep it. The fact is that colleges are dropping their insurance plans for students because, under the President's law, those insurance plans were going to go up anywhere from 4 to 10 times more as a result of the mandates that those students buy government-approved levels of insurance, which was a lot more insurance than the students needed, wanted, or could afford. So the colleges are saying we cannot pass this expense on to students, so we are going to drop it entirely. It is astonishing that the President doesn't realize how many people are impacted in a bad way by his own health care law. He thinks it is only the insurance companies, but small business owners are forced now, because of this law, to choose between bad choices. One is that they can offer very high-cost government-approved insurance, making it much more expensive for them to try to run their business and hire workers in this time of significant uncertainty in the economy, or they won't offer any health coverage at all because they cannot afford the law's out-of-touch and expensive insurance mandates. The choice is completely unacceptable, and the President should know that. Someone in the White House ought to be informing the President. They ought to clearly be leveling with the President about the impact of his bill, his law, and his understanding of it, and what the impacts are on American families and the American economy. The private sector is not doing fine. This health care law negatively impacts people across the country, including many small business owners. The President also deserves to know from his advisers that his health care law is having a significant impact on American seniors. Earlier this week, Senator Coburn and I joined the rest of the Republican health care providers in Congress, in the House and Senate, and released a ``Doctor's Note on Medicare.'' This new report details how the President's health care law specifically makes it harder for America's seniors to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower price. I want to walk you through this report. There is a section called ``10 Facts Seniors Need to Know About Medicare's Future.'' I will focus on five of those. One, to control Medicare spending, instead of trusting seniors, the President empowered 15 unelected bureaucrats. That is right, the President set up the Independent Payment Advisory Board, people who would be politically appointed--not elected by the voters but unelected bureaucrats. They will be the ones in charge of deciding and controlling Medicare spending. Another is that doctors overwhelmingly believe the Independent Payment Advisory Board will hurt seniors' access to care. This is under the facts that seniors need to know about Medicare's future as a result of the President's health care law. In a recent survey, 80 percent of doctors said this Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the President liked and put in his health care law, will cut reimbursement rates to doctors, which will harm seniors' access to care. Now let's go to a third. Without congressional action, Medicare reimbursement rates will drop about 30 percent at the end of the year, which would harm seniors' access to care. That is in the law as it stands now. If the law isn't changed, that cut will automatically go into place, and it is going to be that much harder for seniors to get doctors. Seniors are very concerned right now about being able to find a doctor. If their doctor retires, they may have a hard time finding a new doctor. If the senior moves locations, they may have a hard time finding a doctor in that location. This is an increasing problem that is made worse by the health care law. I think the President deserves to hear that and to know that and to realize the impact his law has had on people way beyond, as he says, just insurance companies. The President also needs to know--because seniors know--that the President's health care law took $530 billion from Medicare--not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to spend on other programs not for seniors. The health care law cut more than $\1/2\ trillion from the Medicare Program to fund new government programs. Seniors realize this, and it is time the President of the United States understood the impact of the decisions he made when he signed this health care bill into law. Many seniors on Medicare Advantage will lose their plan. More than one in four seniors are currently on Medicare Advantage. It is a choice they make. They know they are on Medicare Advantage. Over 11 million seniors are on Medicare Advantage. Yet, according to the Actuary of Medicare alone, by 2017, when the Medicare Advantage cuts in the President's health care law are fully implemented, roughly half--half-- of seniors who like the Medicare Advantage plan they have will lose it. The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. Perhaps he should have realized the bill he signed into law would cause him to break a number of the promises he made to the American people. That is another one of those broken promises. So the President promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But we find out many more people are not able to keep what they have. And the President said his plan would lower insurance costs by $2,500 per family. Yet we see insurance rates have gone up, and they are going up faster than if the law had never been passed in the first place. So the reality is from the time I gave my second opinion speech last week until today, the President needs to realize the private sector is not fine and his health care law hurts small businesses, hurts seniors, and hurts patients all across this country. If the President wants to do something to help the private sector, he should work with Congress to repeal his health care law and to replace it with better reforms that would actually be better for patients and providers and taxpayers. This health care law, as I see it, is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients-- and it is terrible for the American taxpayer. What we need is health care reform that actually provides the care for people they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would just like to comment on that. Because it does not matter how long one is here, all we need do is pick up the newspaper or pick up the National Journal. I agree with my colleague from South Dakota. At the beginning of this year, the National Journal, big article, picture of the majority leader, and the headline is: ``Reid's New Electoral Strategy.'' ``Forget passing bills'' is the subheadline. ``Forget passing bills. The Democrats just want to play the blame game in 2012.'' That is exactly what we saw this morning on the floor of the Senate. This is not some piece of fiction. This is something that actually the majority leader told 40 Democrats from the House about his goal, his intentions for the 2012 year in Congress. It goes on to say: Working with the White House, Senate Democrats are applauding a 2012 floor agenda driven by Obama's reelection campaign. . . . It goes on. Senate floor action will be planned less to make law-- We have 8.2 percent unemployment, and this party admits--the leader admits in this piece the Senate action will be planned less to make law-- than to buttress Obama's charge that Republicans are obstructing measures. . . . That is what their goal is? That is a year's plan, as outlined to Democrats in the House from the majority leader. It goes on to say: . . . Democrats will push legislation that polls well and dovetails with Obama's campaign. . . . With 8.2 percent unemployment, that is not polling so well. With the New York Times reporting today that over two-thirds of Americans want to find that the health care law is unconstitutional--New York Times, two-thirds of Americans, unconstitutional health care law. That is what the people are saying. Nothing this President and this administration and the Democrats are doing is polling very well. We ought to look back at the history of this great institution. The Senate is a unique legislative institution. No matter who the majority is, it is designed to guarantee the minority party, and therefore a large block of Americans whom it represents, that that party has a voice. Traditionally, this body functions well when the majority party works to find consensus with the minority party on the process and the substance of legislation--consultation, compromise, and both parties working together. Historically, that has been the rule, not the exception, as we have seen in recent years. I sit here and look at the seat, the empty seat a couple rows ahead of me and off to the other side of the aisle where Robert Byrd sat. Senator Byrd understood the importance of allowing for a full debate and amendment process in order to preserve the Senate as a unique institution in our democracy--``the one place in the whole government where the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views.'' The Senate, he taught, ``was intended to be a forum for open and free debate and for the protection of political minorities.'' Indeed, ``as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' I would say allowing the minority to debate and amend legislation has given way to what we see now as Democrat's election-year political strategy of blaming Republicans as obstructionists. The minority and the majority need to work together. Majority Leader Reid has done all these things in terms of the strategy and the blaming by preventing Republicans from amending pending legislation, ending debate before it starts, and bypassing the committee process. He has made a habit of squelching the voice of the minority by curtailing its ability to amend legislation. The majority leader is always the first to be recognized on the Senate floor. He can use that power to offer a series of Democratic amendments to pending legislation in a way that prevents Republicans from offering any of their ideas. It is called filling the tree. How often does it happen? Let's think first about the history. The majority leader once insisted that this practice of filling the tree, he said, ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' By the way the Senate operates today, however, it is clear he has abandoned that previous assessment. According to the Congressional Research Service, Majority Leader Reid has employed this tactic a record 59 times. He has used it to block minority input in legislation 50 percent more often than the past five majority leaders combined. The minority's only option, under these circumstances, is to oppose ending debate on legislation known as invoking cloture in order to convince the majority to allow it to offer amendments to legislation and thereby represent the interests of their constituents. This is a very bad practice. When one takes a look at Congress after Congress, whether it was George Mitchell, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Tom Daschle, Bill Frist, combined, here we have Senator Reid 50 percent more than all the others combined. So here we are. We have come to the floor of the Senate to respond to what we heard from the majority leader this morning about obstructionism, and what do we see? It is just a page from the majority leader's playbook of the electoral strategy for 2012 from the leader of the majority. Forget passing bills, the Democrats just want to play the blame game in 2012. That is exactly what we saw today. 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. Madam President, yesterday, Vice President Biden and other Obama administration officials hosted presidents and leaders from colleges and universities at the White House. Officials promoted this event as an opportunity, they said, to highlight the transparency of college costs. They said these schools were committed to providing key financial information to all of their incoming students starting next year. Well, once again, transparency took a back seat to politics. In fact, the White House failed--failed--to level with college students about important financial information, including how the President's health care law is going to make it harder for many students in terms of their ability to get health insurance through their universities. Earlier this week, the real story came out, and I will tell you it is discouraging. I continue to come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law because I think the health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--it is terrible for our taxpayers. I do not think I realized at the time I started doing these second opinions that it was going to be terrible for students going to college. Take a look at these unintended consequences that have come out of this health care law. But I will tell you, on Monday, national news reports showed that the coverage requirements in the President's health care law--the mandated requirements in the health care law of a certain level of government-approved coverage--well, it is causing colleges all across the country to drop insurance coverage for their students. I would like to explain exactly how this works. As Members of this body who voted for this on the other side of the aisle will recall, the health care law eliminates annual and lifetime benefits for insurance plans. Many colleges offer their students an opportunity for limited benefit policies to give students access to affordable health insurance coverage that actually is something that a college student might need, might benefit from, may be helped with. These are the same benefit plans that have been popular with many unions across the country. The plans were so popular that the administration issued over 1,700 waivers which impacted over 4 million Americans. These Washington waivers ensured that people who got their insurance through certain corporations and unions would not lose the coverage they had in the lead-up to the full implementation of the health care law. Well, over half of these waivers were granted to individuals who received their insurance through their unions so these individuals would not lose their coverage during the time when the unions were saying: This health care law is too expensive for us. We don't want to live under these mandates. We can't afford it. Well, the colleges are finding the same situation. But unlike the unions, the colleges are not eligible to apply for these special administration waivers from the health care law. So students across the country are suffering the consequences. This year, because of the President's health care law, these students are not going to be able to purchase or afford coverage through their schools. Schools are faced with two options: One is raise premiums dramatically, drastically, or just don't offer the health insurance programs students like, parents like, and the universities like to provide. The President of the United States and the Democrats who voted for this health care law essentially have said: Too bad. So let's give an example from New York State. The State University of New York in Plattsburgh offered students coverage in the past for $440 per year. Next year policies will cost anywhere between $1,300 and $1,600 per student per year. That is an increase of four times, 400 percent. Why? Because the students are going to end up paying for a lot of insurance they do not need, they do not want, and they possibly cannot afford. But yet the President mandates they get this high level of insurance coverage even though it is something the people at the university think their students do not need. The universities do not have a choice. The President makes those decisions, not the president of the university but the President of the United States. The University of Puget Sound in Washington was able to offer its students insurance last year for $165--insurance they believed was helpful to the students. Next year, to comply with the President's health care law--the mandated high levels of coverage--they estimate a policy will now cost between $1,500 and $2,000. Since the Obama administration's mandates were so expensive, what is the University of Puget Sound going to do? Well, they announced they will not be offering any insurance coverage to any students next year-- a decision made by the university. It is clear the President's health care law leaves many students with two bad choices: They can either be forced to pay vastly increased premiums or basically lose access to coverage altogether. This new development flies completely in the face of the President's promise. The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But let's specifically go to the President's exact promise: No matter how we reform health care-- The President of the United States said-- we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. He went on to say: If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. He then said: No one will take it away. No matter what. He said: My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works. Here we are, over 2 years later, and we continue to witness the Obama administration breaking this very specific promise. Now we can add college students to the long list of people who found out the reality does not match President Obama's rhetoric. At a time when students across the Nation face increasing tuition costs and a bleak job market, now they have to deal with losing their health insurance. Each day it becomes more obvious that the Obama economy, which includes the President's health care law, has made life worse for millions of Americans. It cannot continue. If the Supreme Court does not completely repeal this health care law, Congress needs to do it. Republicans are committed to repealing this law and replacing it with step-by-step reforms. We will continue to help Americans of all ages work to get the care they want from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Sara Aviel to be the Alternate Executive Director to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Had the Senate conducted a recorded vote, I would have voted against Ms. Aviel's nomination. In 2011, the World Bank released a new 10-year energy sector lending strategy which includes a proposal to limit lending for new coal generation projects. I strongly disagree with the World Bank blocking any access to coal-powered energy. Their strategy will drive up energy prices around the world, and will make affordable and reliable energy for poor countries difficult to secure. The World Bank should be focused on poverty reduction and economic growth. Using advanced technologies, coal provides a clean, low cost and reliable energy source which is critical to countries looking for assistance in poverty alleviation and economic development. I believe representatives of the United States at the World Bank should support low cost and dependable energy sources as a means to help countries spur economic growth. Sara Aviel supports the World Bank providing financing for coal power generation but only to the poorest countries when no other options are available. She reiterated this point when I asked her whether she would support the World Bank's financing of a new coal-fired power plant project in Kosovo. She stated: There are a number of compelling reasons in favor of this project. First, Kosovo, one of the poorest countries in Europe, is greatly in need of reliable base load power and there appears to be no other viable alternatives. Since the majority of lending by the World Bank is for middle-income countries, and not to the poorest of countries, the World Bank strategy supported by Sara Aviel will place significant limits, if not eliminate, lending for coal power generation. I believe she will use the World Bank 10-year energy strategy as a means to restrict World Bank lending for coal power generation projects, even when the proposal represents the most cost effective alternative. Requiring borrowers to accept higher cost projects when affordable and reliable alternatives are readily available is no way to operate a bank, especially when the bank is being funded with taxpayer dollars. The World Bank has also started a shift from providing financing to help the poorest of countries with economic growth and reducing poverty, to a focus in other areas with a strong emphasis on lending to middle-income countries. Middle-income countries that receive the vast majority of World Bank financing include nations such as China and Brazil. While Sara Aviel agrees that middle-income countries are able to borrow on international capital markets at commercial rates, she believes the World Bank should continue its lending to these countries. I disagree with her support of this policy. The World Bank should be aggressively working towards the graduation of middle-income countries from borrowers to donors. The resources of the World Bank should be directed at helping the poorest of countries eradicate poverty and implement successful economic development projects. Their primary focus should be on assisting countries that cannot access international capital markets at commercial rates, not financing middle-income countries that can tap other financing resources. The World Bank is at a critical juncture. The Bank needs to pursue serious reforms, especially in the areas of corruption and transparency. It must not be used to push social agendas and political priorities to the detriment of poor nations, or to use donor funds in a manner that is not cost-effective. The United States representative must be a strong advocate for reform and accountability. I do not believe that Sara Aviel is the person to get that job done. It is for these reasons that I oppose the nomination of Sara Aviel.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to follow up on the wonderful comments made by the minority leader. Specifically, I want to talk about the health care law and the ways that taxpayer dollars are now being wasted and spent in what appears to be a propaganda campaign by this administration to promote a health care law the American people--at least the majority of them when asked about it-- think should be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and so many Americans want to see repealed and replaced. Over 2 years ago, President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress--in this very body and across the Hall--jammed a health care law through Congress that was drafted completely behind closed doors. We all recall Nancy Pelosi famously saying at the time: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. I have come to the floor week after week after that with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law to make sure the American people know what is in it. Week after week there have been more things found out about the health care law that has made it even more unpopular today than it was at the time it was passed and signed into law by President Obama. Americans knew what they wanted. They did want health care reform. They wanted to be able to get the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford. Yet when I go to townhall meetings and meetings in other communities across my home State of Wyoming and ask the question: Do you think under the President's health care law you will be paying more or less for your health care, the hands go up that they are going to be paying more. Then I ask them: Do you think the quality and availability of your care is going to go down under the health care law? Again, the hands go up. That is not what Americans want, not to pay more and get less. Yet that is what the American people are receiving under this health care law. So I will continue to deliver this second opinion on the Senate floor so we can continue to talk about what is going to be the impact on Americans' lives as a result of the health care law. Now, for over 2 years, the news about the law has not been good for those who support it, and the country has had opposition to the law continue to increase. Today 56 percent of Americans oppose the President's health care law. One may ask: Why is that? Well, there are a number of reasons. One is the health care law is adding to the national debt. We heard the Republican leader talk about the incredible national debt the American people are facing. The health care law has increased premiums that people have to pay for their own insurance directly as a result of the health care law being passed. The President promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But actually the health care law has made it harder for workers to keep their employer-sponsored health care coverage. People want to have choices. They want to have patient-centered care. Yet this health care law established an unprecedented board with unelected bureaucrats who will, by their decisions, have a direct impact on whether patients can get to see a doctor or whether they can receive care. When I look at the incentives that are part of this health care law, to me, the incentives actually appear to encourage employers to either fire workers or stop providing health care coverage. To me, this health care law is discouraging to students who otherwise might pursue a career in the medical field and potentially provide care for Americans. In my opinion, this is a law that has actually weakened, not strengthened, Medicare. It has done that by taking $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare, not to help strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else. The Medicare Actuary came out with a report last Friday to say that when we actually get into a realistic assessment of the impact of this health care law on Medicare, it weakens it. It shows Medicare going broke sooner than initially thought. This report has a realistic look at the impact of the health care law on Medicare and shows that it will make it that much harder for our seniors on Medicare to get the treatment they need and to actually get to see a doctor to find someone to care for them. The implementation of this law, which takes $500 billion away from Medicare, is not to strengthen or save Medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else. So I could go on and on with legitimate complaints about the law. We made it clear for over 2 years that the law is bad for patients, bad for providers, nurses, and the doctors who take care of those patients, and it is terrible for taxpayers. This week we got a response to our long list of serious issues, responses from the administration and members of the administration. What they are doing is essentially doubling down on the President's failed law. Instead of addressing the serious concerns the American people have about the law and about their own health care, the White House has come to the conclusion they have actually done a bad job of educating the American people about the law. So now, just months before the Presidential election, the 2012 election, the administration has just signed a $20 million contract for a private PR firm to educate the American people about the law. Of course, this is taxpayer funded. So let me repeat: The Obama administration is not even going to acknowledge any of the real problems with the law. Instead it is going to spend 20 million taxpayer dollars on press releases and more government propaganda. It is important to remember this isn't the first time the White House has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to spin this law. They realize it is unpopular, but are they addressing the fundamental flaws? No, they want to do more public relations. In fact, this administration spent $700,000 on an advertisement starring Andy Griffith, the television star, about how the law will impact Medicare. The Internal Revenue Service spent nearly $1 million in taxpayer funds to pay for 4 million postcards to promote tax credits in the law for small businesses. Of course, what we have seen, and what the President would say, and I would say, is fewer and fewer small businesses than anticipated found they were not able to qualify for the so-called benefits of the health care law. So what we have seen is the President's law continues to be unpopular, and now the administration chooses to spend taxpayer dollars to try a public relations campaign to make it more popular instead of dealing with the fundamental problems. So here we are millions of dollars later, and it is clear that the White House still has not learned what most Americans understand--good policy is good communication. When a law is good, it sells itself and Americans immediately reap the rewards and appreciate what has been done. But when a law such as this health care law is a bad one, there is no way another slick PR campaign, paid for with taxpayer dollars, can make it look any better. The American people deserve real solutions to their health care problems, not more Washington spin. Yesterday I called on the President to cancel this program immediately, to retain the taxpayer dollars and use it to pay off the debt, use it as part of lowering the deficit. Don't send it to a PR firm to try to spin this law. We need to repeal this law. We need to repeal this health care law and replace it with a better plan. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on this PR campaign, we need to go back to the drawing board. Americans deserve to be able to get the care they need from the doctor they want and at a price they can afford. That is what I will continue to talk about on the Senate floor as I offer a doctor's second opinion about the significant failure of the law that passed the Senate, was crammed through the House, and was signed by President Obama 2 years ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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