John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have risen many times over the past 3 years to talk about the bad policy choices of the Obama administration and the harmful effects of these policies on our economy and on the American people. In many ways, the President's decisions have made things worse in our country. The bill before us today would impose what is being called the Buffett tax. It is just one more example of a policy that will hurt our economy, not help it. This tax will take money from the pockets of small businesses that they would use to create jobs. More than one- third of all business income reported on individual returns would be hit by this tax increase. Back in September President Obama said this tax hike on American families would raise enough money not only to pay for his increased spending but it would ``stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.'' Back then he said: ``This is not politics; this is math.'' Of course, we now know the Buffett tax is only about one thing: politics. The increased tax revenue would amount to about $5 billion this year, which is about the same amount of money Washington will borrow over the next day and a half. The President would have to collect his so-called Buffett tax for more than 200 years just to cover the Obama deficit from last year alone. That is not just my math; that is the math from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Buffett tax will not fix Washington's debt because Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Even one of President Obama's top economic advisers finally admits the Buffett tax will not ``bring the deficit down and the debt under control.'' Based on his record, it is clear the President would not put a single dollar raised by his new tax toward the debt. He will just spend it. So the President has now changed his story once again. Now he says this is no longer a way to pay down the deficit. Now he says it is just a matter of fairness. President Obama has been using the word ``fair'' in quite a few of his campaign speeches lately. It is a word of great appeal to most people. Just like ``hope'' and ``change''--the buzz words of the 2008 Presidential campaign--people can interpret it to fit their own meaning. President Obama's idea of fairness doesn't match up with the American people's idea of fairness. Senator McConnell earlier made reference to an editorial I wrote in Investors Business Daily. President Obama thinks it is fair that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of Washington's reckless spending, such as borrowing 42 cents of every $1 it spent so far this year. President Obama thinks it was fair to pile another $40,000 of debt onto every household in the United States over the last 3 years. President Obama thinks it is fair to use college students as props for his campaign-style rallies without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in debt. President Obama thinks it is fair to force hard-working taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car because it fits into his idea for American energy. President Obama thinks it is fair to hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to politically connected solar energy companies that then go bankrupt. President Obama thinks it is fair to tell thousands of workers they will not have jobs because he has blocked the Keystone XL Pipeline. Why? To solidify his support with a few far-left environmentalists. President Obama thinks it is fair that more than half of his biggest fundraisers won jobs in his administration. That is right, more than half, which has been reported in the Washington Post. President Obama thinks it is fair to give important jobs to people who fail to pay their own taxes, such as his own Treasury Secretary. Apparently, President Obama thinks it is fair that 3 years of the Obama economy have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment. There are many ways in which the American people's understanding of ``fairness'' differs from the way President Obama has been using the word. To the vast majority of Americans, ``fair'' means an equal opportunity to succeed. To President Obama, ``fair'' requires nothing less than a total equal outcome regardless of effort. To most Americans, fairness allows for the pursuit of their own dreams. It also recognizes that no man and no government can provide a guarantee of success. The waves of immigrants who have come to our shores over generations did so for freedom and for a chance to succeed. They did not come to be taken care of and to have every decision made for them by the government. That is what many of them were leaving behind. When President Obama pushes for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity, he is trying to pit one American against another. He is telling people it is not fair that someone else has something they don't have. That may be a clever campaign tactic, but it is not true, and it is bad for our country. One person getting more does not mean someone else has to get less. In America, it is possible for all of us to prosper. That is what made America different from the very beginning--the prospect that all of us can do better--not at the expense of our neighbors but by our own effort. There is something that threatens to keep all of us from success. It is the thing that threatens to keep us all from passing on to our children the hope for their own prosperity. It is the crushing debt, the debt this administration has been forcing onto the backs of American workers. It is the mountain of bureaucracy that stifles American opportunity. The old maxim says that a rising tide lifts all boats. President Obama seems to think it is better to put holes in all of the boats as long as that means they are all equal in the end. That is what he seemed to be saying in 2008 during one of the Democratic Presidential debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked then-Senator Obama why he favored raising taxes on capital gains. Our history clearly showed that when the tax rate has gone up, government revenues actually went down. Senator Obama said he wanted to raise taxes anyway ``for purposes of fairness.'' In the name of achieving what he considers to be fair, the President was willing to hurt millions of hard-working families who already paid taxes on their income--families who invested some of that income and now would have to pay higher taxes again when they decide to sell some of those investments. The President didn't even care if Washington ended up with less money as a result of his efforts to punish success. The only important thing was that he thought it would be more fair. That is a pretty extreme definition of what ``fair'' means, and it is not one the American people share. In any fair society, doing better should be a consequence of one's efforts. To President Obama, fairness means getting something for nothing. The American dream is about people using ingenuity, ambition, and hard work. It is about overcoming obstacles. Americans admire the inventor who works long hours in the garage, building and failing and trying again and again until this inventor succeeds. Americans speak with pride about having worked their way through college washing dishes, pouring concrete, flipping hamburgers--whatever it took for them to reach their goals. Most Americans don't speak with pride about being bailed out by Washington or cashing a government check. The idea of people earning their success has been a vital part of our Nation's character since our founding. It does not come from government. It cannot be redistributed. The more government tries to redistribute success, the more strings it attaches because a handout from Washington always comes with strings attached. The President's health care law is a perfect example. It is built on shifting millions of people onto Medicaid, a program designed to take care of low-income Americans. Putting more people on Medicaid is not the same as giving them access to the medical care they need. Giving people unemployment benefits and funding short-term stimulus jobs is not the same as freeing up employers to hire more workers and providing long-term jobs and actual careers. Handing out benefits from Washington may provide a safety net in the short run, but when the short run turns permanent it robs people of the tools and incentives they need to succeed. It does even greater damage to our economy when President Obama pays for it by piling more debt on the backs of American taxpayers. We all recognize the value of the social safety net. None of us--I repeat, none of us--wants to eliminate that protection. To be true to this country's greatest traditions, it must be a real safety net to catch people who are falling. It must never become a net to entangle them so they cannot rise nor a comfortable hammock on which they choose to recline. Somewhere along the way Washington twisted the honorable American impulse to care for the most vulnerable among us. That shift now threatens to produce a culture of dependency that weakens our society and hurts the people it was meant to help. A half century ago, John F. Kennedy appealed to the great spirit of America when he said: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' Today, the Obama administration is trying to make Washington irreplaceable in the lives of Americans. The great irony, the great tragedy, is that no one is more trapped by this failed redistribution than the poorest--the people the President so often claims to be trying to help. That is part of the downside to the culture of dependency. It is why Washington can never provide for people as well as people could and should provide for themselves. President Obama is focused on fixing all of the faults he sees in the American people. Republicans are focusing on giving the American people the opportunity to succeed using their talents and their hard work. When Washington tells people: Don't worry; your government will take care of all your needs, it does them no service. It only deprives people of their freedoms to make their own choices, to stand on their own two feet, and to earn their success. The American people don't want Washington to pick winners and losers. They want a fair chance to win on their own. That is why they are asking for a clear and limited set of rules and the assurance that those rules apply to all of us, even those who donate to President Obama's reelection campaign. They are asking that the rules not change on the whims of some unelected bureaucrat in Washington. They want to know they still have the right to control their own choices. President Obama says it is fair for Washington to make the decisions so that everyone is equal in the end. He says it is fair to take more money from hard-working families and small businesses through the so- called Buffett tax we are debating today. Tax increases will not help our fragile economy, and they will not put the brakes on Washington's out-of-control spending. Republicans want to promote economic growth for everyone, not equality of outcome at everyone's expense. Despite what President Obama may believe, America is not an unfair place. True fairness requires equal opportunity so all may pursue their American dream. That is what America was founded on, and that is the philosophy that must be allowed to lead us to a more prosperous future for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the reason I come to the floor today is to speak on behalf of these two amendments I have filed to S. 2204. A few weeks ago, we learned that oil and gas production on Federal public lands and waters is down. Specifically, we learned there was a 14-percent decrease in oil production on Federal public lands and waters from 2010 to 2011 and an 11-percent decrease in gas production from 2010 to 2011. On March 14, Bob Abbey, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, testified about this before the Appropriations Committee. He explained that there had been ``a shift [in the oil and gas production] to private lands to the east and to the south where there is a lesser amount of Federal mineral estate.'' That is why amendment No. 1956 would accelerate permitting for oil and gas exploration on our Federal public lands, and that is why I just offered that. I took a look at the amendments and the discussion on the bill on the floor, and that is why specifically I offered an amendment that would rescind the administration's rules requiring what are called master leasing and development plans. These regulations were put into place over 2 years ago by the Secretary of the Interior. It is unclear why the Secretary issued these regulations. They add more redtape, they cause more bureaucratic delay, and they slow down American energy production. This amendment would also require the administration to set goals for oil and gas production on Federal public lands. It would ensure that the United States maintains or increases onshore oil and gas production. I have also filed a second amendment, No. 1957, which would require Federal agencies to use existing environmental review documents for oil and gas permitting. When we take a look at this amendment, this would expedite the time it takes to prepare environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, often known as NEPA. Too often, NEPA delays onshore and offshore exploration. My amendment provides a commonsense solution. It requires agencies to use, in whole or in part, an existing environmental review document if the existing document was completed for a permit that is substantially the same as the permit under consideration. This amendment doesn't exempt agencies from complying with NEPA, and it does not provide for categorical exclusions. It simply requires agencies to use their previous work so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. I am disappointed that the majority continues to prevent the Senate from doing its job and that we heard an objection to these amendments. High gasoline prices are causing hardships for American families and American businesses. My Republican colleagues and I filed a number of amendments to S. 2204. We would like to have votes on these amendments. We would like to take steps to increase American oil production. Instead, as we just saw, the majority says no. ``No'' to more American energy, they say; ``no,'' they say to jobs; and ``no,'' they say to strengthening our energy security. We can do better, and it is my hope that we will. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. BARRASSO. I agree with my colleague from Arizona that there are a number of things that continue to drive up the cost of health care. One of the things I believe should have been included in the health care law--I would think we could actually lower the cost of care, lower unnecessary testing, and part of that--all of the studies show--is doing away with these junk lawsuits that result in significant numbers of additional expensive tests being done. It seems to me that we spend more time trying to protect the doctors than trying to help the patients. Even in a rural State such as Wyoming--and I see my colleague from South Dakota on the floor--this is a national concern and should have been included in any health care law that was supposed to target lowering the cost. That is what the President promised in the beginning, that families would see their health care premiums go down by $2,500 per year. Instead, the premiums have gone up by about $2,100 year. My colleague from South Carolina has cosponsored legislation to try to give States the opportunities to opt out of a number of provisions of the health care law because they are onerous as to the costs and what is happening in the States and for people at home. If you look at the President's proposals, I would think that any national health care law ought to look at certain components of things that actually bring down the cost of care. With this one-size-fits-all approach and the demand that everyone buy government-sponsored or government-approved health care insurance, the rates are going up instead. I turn to my friend from South Carolina and ask him about that, plus the unfunded mandates that are forced on the States with Medicaid, which is a significant part of what is being discussed today in the Supreme Court.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I have over the last 2 years since the health care law was passed, with a doctor's second opinion. I do that as someone who has practiced medicine and taken care of families across the country--primarily in Wyoming--for a quarter of a century, listening to them, trying to care for them, and knowing that what the American people want is the care they need, a doctor they want, at a price they can afford. During the last 2 years since the health care law was passed, the American public has found out that now that it has passed, they get to know what is in it, they don't like what they are seeing. Instead of providing patients with the care they need from the doctor they want and at a cost they can afford, they are seeing time and time again a significant change and the promises the President has made broken. I am here with my colleagues to talk about some of these concerns. I see the Senator from Arizona, who has heard the promises made. I know that when he goes to townhall meetings and talks to people, they have found out that the costs they were promised would go down have gone up instead. The opportunity of patients to keep the care they want and the doctor they want--they are not able to do that. Is that what the Senator from Arizona has been finding?

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is. And as neighboring States, South Dakota and Wyoming work closely together and are very similar. The experiences we are having in Wyoming--we now have a Republican Governor but previously had a Democratic Governor--as my colleague talked about, with the Medicaid mandates, which were called by one Governor the ``mother of all unfunded mandates,'' is that the money that has to be used for that is crowding out other things, so that is money that can't be used specifically for education. One of the worst things that is happening for education across our country is the health care law, because for every penny the State now has to add to pay for this Medicaid expansion--this unfunded mandate--and I heard the numbers from my colleague from South Dakota, and these are astronomically large numbers--those are dollars that are not going to go to the universities and the institutions of higher education, as well as our additional schools throughout the State. So all of a sudden, if you have a student in college and you see the tuition has gone up much more than you thought it should have--when you likely think it shouldn't go up at all--and you say, why is that, well, it is President Obama's health care law. That is what is happening by mandating money be spent for Medicaid. That unfunded mandate is taking dollars away from education. This month, in March 2012, a report came out entitled ``The 2011 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid.'' The figures are astonishing on this health spending law called ``ObamaCare'' or the so-called ``Affordable Care Act.'' And by the way, just because you call it that doesn't mean it is affordable, as we see from this report. It drives up Federal Medicaid costs by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars through 2020. It forces many more people onto the Medicaid rolls. The President has talked so much and used interchangeably the words ``coverage and care.'' What we know is that across the country, if somebody has a Medicaid card, that does not equate necessarily to receiving care. My colleague from South Dakota talked about reimbursement rates for physicians. Medicaid, in many ways, underpays sometimes even the cost of seeing a patient, so it is harder for those patients to get seen. So I think the President has used two words interchangeably which are in no way interchangeable. Someone can have a Medicaid card but not be able to get care. The concern is now, as my colleague from South Dakota said, $500 billion of Medicare taken out of Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, not to increase the security for people on Medicare, not to help improve Medicare but to start a whole new government program for other people. The Medicare patients are having a harder and harder time finding a physician to care for them. I would say the President of the United States, by using those two words interchangeably--coverage and care--has, unfortunately, misled people to think coverage equals care, and we know it does not. That is one of the concerns with the health care law, as we talked about the broken promises and the unfunded mandates sent to the States. As I stand with my colleague from South Dakota, I assume when he goes home on weekends--and he does almost every weekend--he hears the same things I hear. When I have a townhall meeting and I ask the question: How many of you believe that under the health care law--remember, the one the President promised your insurance rates would go down $2,500 a year--how many believe that actually, because of the law, your rates are going up faster than if there hadn't been a law at all, all the hands go up. I ask: How many of you believe the quality and availability of your care is going to get worse because of this law? Again, the hands go up. For a second, I thought maybe that was just something we saw in Wyoming and in South Dakota. But in a national poll yesterday--in the New York Times, of all places--on page A15 of yesterday's New York Times, in terms of the health care law: How will this health law affect you personally? Will this help you? Less than one in five Americans said this will help them. Twice as many said it will actually hurt them. When they asked: Will this decrease your costs, one in six said it would decrease their costs. More than half said it would increase their costs. When it asked, How about the quality of your care, only one in six said they actually expected better quality of care. Many more expected worse quality of care. So it is not just Wyoming, it is not just South Dakota. It is the entire country which is seeing this same impact. I would ask my colleague from South Dakota, as he travels around, is this what he is seeing everywhere as well?

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, President Obama often boasts about oil production he really had nothing to do with. My amendments I am bringing forth today would allow him to be proud of his own record instead of his predecessors, and that is why I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate returns to consideration of S. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, that it be in order for me to offer amendments Nos. 1956 and 1957. Amendment No. 1956 would accelerate permitting of oil and gas exploration on our Federal public lands, and amendment No. 1957 would require Federal agencies to use existing environmental review documents for oil and gas permitting.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with a number of my colleagues for the next 30 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. Yes.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue that is before us today on the floor of the Senate; that is, the issue of high gas prices. I was at home in Wyoming and filled up again this weekend, as I do most weekends, and today the average price of gasoline, regular unleaded gasoline nationwide, is $3.91 a gallon. That is about 20 cents more than it was a month ago. People at home in Wyoming see the prices continue to go up week after week. High gasoline prices are causing hardships--hardships for American families and American businesses. When families pay more at the pump, they can't spend money on other goods and services. For families dealing with kids and a mortgage and bills, they know the specific impact as they fill their car or truck and see that price rise to the point where it is most, if not more, than $100 to fill the tank. Also, when companies pay more for gasoline, they have less money to expand their businesses. That hurts job creation in this country. Wyoming families and Wyoming businesses know this all too well because in Wyoming we drive longer distances than most Americans. The President also knows this, and that is why he continues to give speeches on energy. It is clear that the President is defensive on this issue. I have heard the speeches, and I say: Pay less attention to what he says and pay more attention to what he does. The average price of a gallon of gasoline, regular unleaded gasoline, is over 100 percent higher than it was when President Obama took office. I will say that again. The price of gasoline is over 100 percent higher than it was when President Obama took office. It is clear that the President's policies are contributing to higher gas prices, but instead of changing course President Obama and Democrats in Congress are doubling down on bad policies and desperate schemes. Here is an example. One Senate Democrat--someone across the aisle from me--said: Let's ask Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. That is exactly what he said. He said his solution is to ask the Secretary of State to ask Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Now President Obama and Senate Democrats want to raise taxes on American oil production. So we are going to ask Saudi Arabia to produce more and yet raise taxes on those who are producing American oil. So the President and the Democrats want more oil from Saudi Arabia, and they also want to make it more expensive to produce American energy. The legislation on the floor doesn't make sense, and the American people recognize that it doesn't make sense. Americans know that if you want less of something, you tax it more. They also know that if you want to increase the cost of something, you tax it more. Raising taxes increases the cost for consumers, and that is, in effect, what President Obama and Senate Democrats are doing with this legislation. They are proposing increasing gas prices by increasing taxes. Even the author of this legislation has said that ``nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices.'' So, then, why would President Obama want to increase gas prices 7 months before a Presidential election? Well, it appears to me it is because his political base fiercely opposes fossil fuels. Now that should not surprise anyone. We have seen this before. Of course, I am referring to the President's rejection recently of the Keystone XL Pipeline, bringing energy from Canada into the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have created thousands of good-paying jobs for Americans. The President said no. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have facilitated oil production in Montana and in North Dakota. The President said no. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have increased supplies of oil from Canada. The President said no--to the point that the Prime Minister of Canada actually went to China to ask if they would buy the energy from Canada if the United States is not interested. So why would the President reject it? Well, because his political base has fiercely opposed the pipeline. Now the President wants to have it both ways. He would like to please his political base as well as the American public. That is why the administration wants to go hat in hand and ask Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. It is also why the President is considering plans to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will be the second time President Obama tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Last June, if you will recall, the President released 30 million barrels of oil from the Reserve. Prior to that, it had only been tapped twice for emergencies since 1975. So between 1975 and June of 2011, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had only been tapped twice for emergencies. It was tapped in 1991 upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf war, and it was tapped following Hurricane Katrina. In both instances those were real disruptions of the supply of oil to the United States. But when President Obama tapped the Strategic Reserve last year, there was no substantial prospect of a supply disruption. His decision at the time was based on politics, as would be his decision to tap it now. That is why Jay Leno recently called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve President Obama's ``Strategic Re-Election Reserve.'' Well, my Republican colleagues and I think there are other ways to address high gas prices. The other thing is, when they tapped the Strategic Reserve last year and took out the 30 million barrels, they did not actually refill it, so that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not filled up right now. It is lower. Just to fill it back to where it should be, its baseline level, would cost actually almost $1 billion more than they got when they sold the oil last year. I believe there are things we should be doing and can do that will enhance, not jeopardize, our Nation's security and specifically our Nation's energy security. We understand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is for emergencies, not political disasters; and we understand if we want more of something or if we want to lower the cost of something, we do not raise taxes on it. What we do is make it easier to produce the product. That is why my Republican colleagues and I support making it easier to produce American energy, and it is why we are asking the President to make it easier to produce American energy--not harder, not more expensive but easier. A few weeks ago, we learned oil and gas production on Federal lands and waters is down. Specifically, we learned there was a 14-percent decrease in oil production on Federal public lands and waters from 2010 to 2011 and an 11-percent decrease in gas production from 2010 to 2011. Again, the President has not made it easier, but he must make it easier to produce American energy. The President can begin by increasing the number of permits issued for exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is my understanding there are only 25 deepwater rigs active in the gulf right now. I understand 34 deepwater rigs were active in the gulf at this time in 2010. The administration needs to approve more permits and to do it immediately. The President should also increase access to other offshore areas. He should provide access to offshore areas in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. In November, the President proposed an offshore oil and gas leasing plan that amazingly excluded the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. He excluded areas off the coast of Virginia, even though both of the Senators from Virginia who are Democrats, as well as the Governor of Virginia who is a Republican, all support such exploration. The President should also increase access to onshore areas. The President should open areas of Alaska, and we should support proposals to open ANWR. Both Senators--a Democrat and a Republican--and the Governor of Alaska strongly support opening ANWR for energy exploration. The President should too. The President should also take steps to facilitate onshore production in the West. Specifically, the President should scrap new regulations requiring ``Master Leasing and Development Plans.'' These regulations were put into place over 2 years ago by the Secretary of the Interior. It is unclear to me why the Secretary issued these regulations. They add more redtape, they cause more bureaucratic delay, and they slow down American energy production. Of course, there are other regulations that are driving up the cost of American energy--specifically, the EPA's forthcoming tier 3 regulations that will affect America's refineries. A recent study shows this rule could increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline by 6 to 9 cents a gallon. This rule could also raise annual compliance costs for refineries by billions of dollars. And it will almost certainly increase the pain at the pump that is being felt by American families. To me this is unacceptable. The President should at the very least delay the issuance of this rule. In addition to providing more access to Federal lands and waters and eliminating burdensome regulations, the President should address delivery bottlenecks. Specifically, he should address all the bottlenecks the Keystone XL Pipeline would relieve. Here, of course, I am referring to the 100,000 barrels of oil each day that Keystone would ship from Montana and North Dakota. That is right--homegrown American energy from Montana and North Dakota. Right now there is not sufficient pipeline capacity out of North Dakota and Montana. Do you know how they are getting the oil out of there? Well, they are shipping it on trucks and in trains, and that is a lot more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline would reduce the cost of shipping American oil. In addition, the pipeline would ship about 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada. The Canadian oil would replace oil imports from OPEC and thus increase our Nation's energy security. Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline is an easy decision, and the President should make that decision immediately. Again, the President must abandon his support for policies such as this legislation that is ahead of us today, which will only increase the pain at the pump. He must also abandon plans which will put our Nation's security further at risk. Instead, the President must make it easier to produce American energy. He should increase access to Federal public lands and waters, eliminate costly regulations, and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is my hope the President will take all of these steps and do so immediately so the American public does not continue to suffer the significant pain at the pump that continues to affect our country today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting--because I know the Senator goes home, as I do, very often to talk to many of the small business owners in the State of Missouri, as I do in Wyoming, and as Senator Grassley does in Iowa--one of the promises the President made is, he said 4 million small businesses may be eligible for tax credits. Well, it turns out that the key word there by the President is ``may''--may be eligible. Even the fact that the White House has sent out postcards to all these small business--the IRS spent over $1 million of taxpayers' money to send out millions of postcards promoting the tax credit--the Treasury Department's inspector general recently testified that ``the volume of credit claims has been lower than expected''--as a matter of fact, only 7 percent of the 4 million firms the administration claimed. Why? Well, because of the complexity and the whole way the system was set up, the President was able to talk big and deliver very small. That is why so many people are very unhappy with the claims in the health care law because they know these promises have been broken. With regard to Nancy Pelosi's famous quote--that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it--that is why I come to the floor every week with a doctor's second opinion because it does seem just about every week we do learn some new unintended consequence, something new about the health care law and another reason why Americans are unhappy with it, why it remains as unpopular, if not more unpopular, today as when it was passed, and why so many people believe the Supreme Court should find this bill unconstitutional, for the reasons that do have Americans at home in an uproar, and very unhappy that the government can come into their homes and mandate that they buy a government-approved product and pay for it or pay a fine. Nothing like this has happened before, and people are, frankly, offended. We do not know what the Supreme Court is going to do, but I know what this body ought to do. This body ought to vote to repeal and replace this broken health care law and get a health care law in place which is what the American people wanted, which is, the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford. We have not seen that yet. But that is why we are here on the second anniversary of the President's health care law, to continue to point out the flaws of this legislation. Quite interestingly, when you take a look at some of the national poll numbers, for people who have talked to a health care provider--whether that be a nurse, a doctor, a physician's assistant, a physical therapist, a nurse practitioner, no matter who--they are even less supportive of it than the general public.

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. That clearly points out to the people around the country what they know, and if they are on Medicare that it is that much more challenging for them to even find a doctor because of the $500 billion of cuts to Medicare--and not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to start a whole new government program for other people. So those are several of the promises the President made. We just heard from my colleague from Iowa, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' We know that promise has been broken, and now the promises by the President--I will protect Medicare--which is clearly not the case, as the American people have seen, which is why this health care law is even more unpopular today than it was when it was passed. But thinking back to the time it was passed, the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt, who is joining us on the floor, was very actively involved in the debate and the discussions in pointing out the concerns people in his home State had with regard to the health care law and the objections he heard. My recollection is that there was even an issue on the ballot about the health care law and mandates and related issues. So I ask my friend and colleague from Missouri if there are comments he would like to add to help with this discussion of the broken promises of the Obama health care law.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it does seem that way to me, to the point that now, 2 years out, Senator Coburn and I put together a report on what we are finding. It is a checkup on the Federal health law, and the title is ``Warning: Side Effects.'' That is because there are huge side effects from this health care law. The four that we have written out on the prescription pad, as we see it, on the prescription pad handed out by President Obama, No. 1 is fewer choices; No. 2, we have higher taxes; No. 3, more government; and No. 4 is less innovation. That is what the American people are seeing as the side effects of this health care law. People don't want few choices, they want more choices. People don't want higher taxes, they want lower taxes. They don't want more government, they want less government. They don't want less innovation, they want more innovation. That is what the American people asked for. There was a reason to do health care reform--because people wanted the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford. I know that is what my colleague from Iowa sees when he goes home every weekend and talks to people in his home communities.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I say to my colleague from Iowa, it is interesting that we take a look at this and so many promises that reflect one specific promise, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' I practiced orthopedic surgery for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming. Many of those families included family members who were on Medicare, the program for our seniors. Senator Grassley has made some reference in his earlier comments about seniors, people who are on Medicare, people who are having a harder time finding a doctor. This health care law clearly had an impact on seniors as well. So I would ask my colleague from Iowa, are there specific things the Senator has been hearing as he travels around the State and visits with folks at home in terms of perhaps promises made specifically to seniors and those broken promises related to Medicare?

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for 30 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. My understanding of the accountable care organization component is that the very health programs the accountable care organizations were modeled after, the ones the President held up as the models across the country--one was in Utah, one was Geisinger in Pennsylvania, and I believe the Mayo Clinic may have been a third--once those 350 pages of regulations came out, the programs the President said were the models we want to follow, they all said: We can't comply with these regulations. They are too stringent. They are too confining. They will not work in our program. So if it is not going to work in the places where the President said they are doing it well, to me that means they are not going to work anywhere in Wyoming and very likely not anywhere in Iowa or anywhere in Missouri as we try to make sure patients get the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. That is why I continue to look at this health care law and go home every weekend and talk to people, and I continue to hear that this bill is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of the patients--and bad for taxpayers. When we take a look at Medicare--and Senator Blunt made a comment about Medicare and some of the changes--who is going to make these decisions? It looks to me as though, from reading through this law, it is about 15 unelected bureaucrats with this so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board who will decide what hospitals will get paid for providing various services. So in small communities, the hospital may say: Well, we can no longer offer that service. I have heard my colleagues talk about the specific loss of the ability of hospitals to even stay profitable with some of the cuts, from taking $500 billion away from Medicare, again, not to save and strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for others. Those are the things we are dealing with and why, at townhall meeting after townhall meeting, people continue to tell me they want this repealed and they want it replaced with patient-centered health care-- not government-centered, not insurance company-centered, but patient- centered health care. That is what people are asking for, and they get tired of all these broken promises the President has made. I remember the President said he was going to bring down the price of premiums by $2,500 per family per year. What family wouldn't want that? The whole purpose of the health care law initially was to get the costs of health care under control. This didn't do it. If I go to a townhall meeting, as I did not too long ago in Wyoming, and say: How many of you under the new health care law are finding that you are paying more for health insurance, not the $2,500 less a year the President promised, but how many are paying more, every hand goes up. Then we ask the question: How many of you believe the quality and the availability of your own care is going to go down as a result of this health care law, and every hand goes up. I know that in the Show Me State of Missouri, that is not what people want. They don't want to pay more and get less. I don't know if my colleague has been hearing things similar to that at home.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on the Senate floor this morning Senator Durbin called on Republican Members to offer to give up what he called their Federal health care. I heard his comments, and he makes an interesting argument. But, once again, Democrats in the Senate are ignoring history, as the Senator did today. They are ignoring the facts and ignoring the Democrats' record on this issue. The truth is, Republicans in this body have already offered to give up their health insurance coverage. In fact, here is the rest of the story: During the debate on the health care law--almost 2 years ago today-- Republicans offered to forego their private coverage and instead enroll all Members of Congress in Medicaid, the government's safety-net program for low-income individuals. The Democrats in this body unanimously rejected this idea. Every Democrat voted no. This was on an amendment by former Senator LeMieux from Florida, an amendment that asked to enroll all Members of Congress in the Medicaid Program. Yet at least 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under the Democrats' new law are going to get coverage, and they will get their coverage through Medicaid. So the President's solution for health care in this country is to put 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under Medicaid. Yet the Democratic Members of the Senate unanimously voted no. If Democrats believe Medicaid is good enough for the 24 million people they will soon force onto the rolls, my question is, Why isn't it good enough for the Democratic Members of Congress? So I am joined today by my colleagues on the Senate floor who continue to raise questions about the health care law and so many broken promises made by this President. I am fortunate to be joined by a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. I would ask my colleague from Iowa, as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spent a lot of time studying and debating President Obama's health care law, my question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's promises match the reality?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. This over 2,000-page law will result in over 100,000 pages of regulations. There is one part of the law where, for a couple of pages--4 to 6 pages--they had 400 pages of regulations and 50 pages of legal guidance. When we talk to hospitals--I know those of us who visit with hospitals in our States--they say they are spending money on consultants and lawyers to help them understand the law. They say: It is money we ought to spend on patients and equipment and technology for our hospital, to provide care in our community. I know the Senator from Kansas has visited over 100 hospitals in his State. He has heard the same thing.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, when we look at it, even the administration admits that wasn't true. Small businesses--people who get their insurance in small businesses--will have a difficult time continuing to provide coverage for people because of the mandates that say they have to provide Washington-approved insurance. That is the problem: that people have what they like, and it may be something they want, need, and can afford. Now they are being mandated to have something they may not want, need, or be able to afford. So, again, we have another broken promise, which is why Senator Coburn, who practiced medicine for a quarter century, as I did, and I have come out with a report, released yesterday called, ``Warning, Side Effects, a Checkup on the Federal Health Law: Fewer Choices.'' That means people cannot choose to keep what they have. There are fewer choices, higher taxes, more government, and less innovation. None of that is what the American people have been promised by the President.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I stand here with my friend and colleague from Mississippi because he and I both attended, in his home State of Mississippi, a meeting at a hospital where we met with doctors, also met with patients, and met with people from the community while the debate and discussion was being conducted about this health care law. At the time, people were asking all sorts of questions because they had heard the promises. Would this actually lower the cost of insurance by $2,500 a family? That is what people wanted. That is what they expected. The other question: Will I really be able to keep the care I have and the doctor I have if I like it? Now here we are a couple of years later, the second anniversary of this health care law being passed, and I am here with my friend and colleague from Mississippi, and it just seems to me that the questions that were asked by his constituents, by the doctors in those communities who take care of the patients, by the patients, the hospital administrators whom we talked to that day in his home State of Mississippi--it does seem that many of these promises have been broken. The costs seem to go up higher than had this health care law not been passed at all. The numbers and the statistics we are hearing now from the budget office on the cost seem to be much, much higher than what the President promised. Parts of this health care law--the so-called CLASS Act--it now comes out were accounting gimmicks, budget schemes to make it seem as though the cost of this health care law would be much less than what American people now know it to be. So it is no surprise to me--and I see this in Wyoming, and I am sure the Senator sees it in Mississippi, and I would imagine the Senator from Kansas who is on the floor has seen the same thing at home because I know he has gone to hospitals and just--maybe almost every hospital in the State of Kansas as he has traveled around. We are all seeing that this health care law is less popular now than when it was passed. That is what I hear at townhall meetings. When I ask, do you think you are actually going to pay more under the health care law, every hand goes up. And when I say, do you think the quality and availability of your own care at home is going to go down, again, every hand goes up. So if I could ask my colleague from Kansas if he is hearing the same things. And I see we are also joined by the Senator from Arizona.