John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

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 have week after week ever since the President's health care law was passed, to bring a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I traveled the State all the last week in Wyoming talking to people about the things they look for in a health care law, which is what they want as patients, as citizens. What they are looking for is the care they need from a doctor they want at the price they can afford. Across the board, they do not believe they are getting that with the health care law that was passed in this body and then in the House and signed by President Obama during the last couple of years of the administration. It is interesting, as we went to the floor of the House in the House Chamber this past week for the President's State of the Union speech, it was almost 7,000 words, and he focused very little on the health care law. One might say: Well, why is that? Well, it seems pretty obvious it is because that law was unpopular when it was passed, and it is actually more unpopular with the American people today than it was the day it was passed. The more people find out about it, the less popular it becomes. Even the White House understands this law is deeply flawed, it is extremely unpopular, and it actually makes it harder for small businesses to create jobs. So when the President wants to talk about job creation in America, he realizes his health care law isn't helping, and it is actually making it worse. I had townhall meetings in different communities around Wyoming last week, where you gather a group of people together. My colleagues ought to do the same in their own communities and their home States and ask the group of people: Do you believe, under this health care law--you remember, the one the President promised that if passed that the cost of your insurance would go down? Do you remember that law? Do you believe that after that was passed, that your health care costs will actually go up? How many believe the cost of your care will go up and your insurance will go up? Every hand went up. Then ask those same people, who now say they are going to end up paying more: Do you think the quality--because there is a lot of discussion about quality and access and concerns about care. Do you believe the quality of your care will go down? Again, the hands went up. So we have people who are saying: We are going to be paying more and getting less, and that is not what I want. So today I am here to discuss something about the health care law that the President did leave out of his big speech on Tuesday night, and that is the issue of waivers. On January 6, while we were all back in our home communities, many people talking to folks around their home States--on January 6, while Congress was not in session, the House was not in session, the Senate was not in session--the administration ended their program that has been a major embarrassment to the Obama administration. Month by month, the President has had to announce that he had to issue more and more waivers from his health care law, waivers that the President granted to unions, to businesses, and to insurers. Each and every waiver served as a clear admission that the health care law, as written, didn't get the job done and doesn't work. Well, as of January 6, 2012, the administration has issued a total number of waivers that covers more than 4.1 million Americans. Over 1,700 waivers were given covering more than 4.1 million Americans. Now, interestingly, of all of those people, a very small percentage of workers in this country are union workers. Yet over half of all the waivers given, 2.2 million of those people were those who are covered with union insurance. So we have 4.1 million Americans given waivers. So 2.2 million people with union insurance got a waiver; that is, 54 percent of all of the waivers went to union employees who supported the health care law. These are the people who were out in the streets rallying, saying: We want the health care law. They have it on their Web sites. They had celebrations when it was passed. Then, do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said? First, you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. As all these people getting their insurance through unions found out, if they complied with the law as written it would break their policies, break their programs, and they said: We cannot afford to have this law apply to us. Please give us a waiver. And 2.2 million people with union insurance got a waiver. As they say, they let the word out January 6, 2012, while Congress was not in session and while people were focused on other things. The rest of America's small business owners were not so lucky. A new poll from the Chamber of Commerce found that 78 percent of small businesses surveyed reported that taxation, regulation, and legislation from Washington made it harder for their businesses to hire more workers. These are the small businesses of the country, the people who are the job creators. In that same poll, 74 percent of small business owners said the recent health care law makes it harder for their business to hire more employees. Now, aren't these the very people we are asking to go out and hire more workers to get America back to work? Yet the President's and Democrats' health care law is making it harder for 74 percent of small businesses in this country to hire more employees. So how did we get here? Well, in May of 2011 I came to the Senate floor, right here, and explained that the waiver recipients, under the way it worked, had to reapply because they were getting annual benefit waiver limits year after year after year. Realizing what an embarrassment this drip, drip, drip of new waivers was going to be by the administration, in August of 2011 the administration switched course. The Department of Health and Human Services announced at that point that if people wanted a waiver, they were going to have to apply for a final waiver that would carry on all the way through 2014--a 3-year waiver. They wanted to get all of this out by the beginning of 2012 so it wouldn't be a continued election year embarrassment for this President, this administration, and those who voted for it. This scheme allowed the administration to dodge issuing more waivers leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. It is clear these waivers were going to be an election year embarrassment for the President. They are an embarrassment because each and every waiver was yet another reminder to the American people that President Obama's health care law wasn't working. The President promised, and we remember hearing him loudly and clearly: If you like the health insurance plan you have, then you can keep it. Well, what he meant was, to keep the coverage you have, if you like it, you may need a waiver from Washington. I also want to talk for a moment about what happens now that this September deadline has passed and these 4 million waivers have been granted. It is now no longer possible to apply for an annual benefit limit waiver. It is no longer an option for business owners in this country. So that means it leaves hard-working Americans who want to start a new business forced to choose between two options. I think they are bad options. One, they can offer high-cost, government-approved health insurance. Well, that is going to make it very expensive for them to try to open a new business and hire workers. The expense of opening that business may likely be too great. So those jobs are not created, and unemployment rates stay high. No. 2, they could not offer coverage at all because they cannot afford the health care law's onerous mandates. If they chose that second option, what happens ultimately? The American taxpayers will end up footing the bill. With a $15 trillion debt and unemployment hovering around 8.5 percent, the last thing we should do is adopt policies like this health care law and then this waiver that discourage America's best and brightest from starting new companies and hiring new workers. But that is exactly what President Obama's health care law does. It stifles innovation, strangles the market, and it saddles the American people with more debt. This is just another example showing how the President's health care policies are making the situation worse. His policies are hurting America's economy. His policies are making the standard of living in America worse. His policies are making health care in America worse. His policies are making America's debt worse. Almost immediately after President Obama signed this health care bill into law, the employers around the country began to sound the alarm. They said the health care law's annual benefit limit policy would force them to stop offering health insurance to hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families. That is why the administration came up with this waiver idea. Nowhere in the health care law is the Secretary of Health and Human Services granted explicit authority to start an annual benefit limit waiver program--nowhere in the law. What the administration should have done is come to Congress and ask for help to fix the problem they had created. That would mean, however, the President and Washington Democrats would have to admit their health care law was flawed. Washington Democrats crafted policy mandating that everyone must buy government-approved health insurance. In many cases, it is insurance these individuals do not need, do not want, and cannot afford. The President pushed his mandates on the American people without understanding how limited health insurance products work in the marketplace. The administration simply ignored the fact that many employers cannot afford to offer the Cadillac health insurance coverage to their workers that the government is mandating. Now, if those businesses do not have a waiver already, they will not be able to offer their employees any insurance coverage at all, and new business startups will not have the opportunity to ask for a waiver. Those employers might have wanted to offer some basic level of health insurance coverage to their new employees, but thanks to the Obama administration they will not be able to offer anything at all because of the expense. This is just another example of Washington Democrats pushing a one- size-fits-all, ``we know best'' policy where they think they know what is best for all of the people of this country. How many more disruptive, ticking timebombs are there lurking in this health care law? We do not know because many of the provisions do not even go into effect until 2014 or later. That is why I come to the floor week after week giving a doctor's second opinion, to mention and to tell that I intend to fight each and every day to make sure the American people will never have to find out, come 2014. I am committed more than ever to repealing the health care law, repealing it and replacing it with health care reforms that help American families get the care they need from a doctor they want at a price they can afford. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a true American Cowboy, Jhett Johnson. At the Wrangler National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, Jhett and his teammate, Turtle Powell, took home the gold buckle in the team roping competition after 10 rounds of competition against the best of the best. Those of us in Wyoming talk about the Code of the West. As a sixth- generation Wyoming rancher and now a world champion rodeo cowboy, Jhett Johnson personifies the code. He lives each day with courage, takes pride in his work, and rides for the brand. Jhett has demonstrated this in all aspects of his life, not just his rodeo career. When still in his twenties, Jhett survived cancer. He approached his illness, and his recovery, by living the code. He wanted to finish what he started, and he intended to do what needed to be done. He knew that there were hundreds of rodeos ahead of him, and he wasn't going to let cancer slow him down. We can all learn from Jhett Johnson and his teammate, Turtle Powell. Team roping is not an individual sport. You must trust your partner. Team roping takes in incredible amount of practice and skill, but you must acknowledge that sometimes you catch one and sometimes you don't. Competing requires miles and miles of travel to rodeos across our great Nation, which means time away from family and loved ones. When he is not rodeoing, Jhett enjoys training horses on the family ranch near Casper, WY. He is the devoted husband to Jenny and father to three sons, Kellan, Carson, and Cress. Mr. President, join me in congratulating Wyoming's world champion cowboy, Jhett Johnson, on his terrific accomplishments.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today, as I have just about every week since the health care law was passed, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I do that because I practice medicine in Casper, WY, as an orthopedic surgeon, taking care of families from all across our State, and I have significant concerns about the health care law as it was passed, the way it was passed, and what was included in the law. So I come to the floor today because the American people continue to see one news story after another uncovering another error in the health care law, another mistake in the health care law, another glitch in the health care law. Call it what you will, we continue to see more of the health care law's unintended consequences--something that those who voted for it didn't foresee as happening--and we are also seeing another one of the President's broken promises. I come to share with the American people concerns I have as more and more of these things come forward because hard-working individuals and families all across the Nation realize this health care law was not passed for someone such as them. What people asked for, the reason we went through the discussion and the debate had to do with the fact that people wanted the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a cost they can afford. When I say people all across the country realize the health care law was not passed for someone such as them, and it was passed for someone else, that is the reason I come to the floor to talk specifically about something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, which is part of the health care law. On Friday, December 9--1 week ago--the Department of Health and Human Services announced its plan to shut down the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program at the end of this month--shut it down. Remember, President Obama and Washington Democrats touted their early retiree program. They touted that as one of the health care law's early--they called it an early deliverable, something that would be there immediately. The health care law's supporters said this early retiree program would act, they said, as a bridge. They said the program would help employers maintain health insurance coverage for retirees over the age of 55 but not yet eligible for Medicare. They said this program would help people keep their insurance plan until the new health insurance exchanges were up and running in 2014. It is only 2011 now, and they are trying to talk about a bridge to 2014. It quickly became clear the program was intended to be a bailout--a bailout--for companies with a large number of union employees. On October 31 of this year--Halloween day--the senior Senator from my home State of Wyoming, the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Mike Enzi, released a report. That Halloween day report is a report the Senator asked for. It was a report he asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct, specifically looking into the early retiree program's implementation. This is why the report is so scary: The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, said through the end of September of 2011, the administration had already spent more than half the $5 billion allocation--more than half already spent by September of 2011. Let's fast forward to December 14, 2011. We are talking about yesterday. The House Energy and Commerce Committee released updated information about the early retiree program's spending. As of last Friday, December 9, 2011, the Obama administration--the people in charge of this bill, the people who wanted it, passed it, said it would work--said: Oh, we have now spent over $4.5 billion of the $5 billion budget--91 percent of the total early retiree program budget. It was supposed to last through 2014, and 91 percent of it is gone. The budget should have lasted 1,300 days. Instead, this administration drained the money--taxpayers' money, hard-earned dollars--in just 579 days. The early retiree program has run out of money so fast that it is going to be forced to close 2 years early. The administration has said it is no longer going to pay out claims submitted after December 31 of this year. The health care law's supporters promised the early retiree program would stay in place through January 1st of 2014. What we have is another broken promise. Just a little over a month after the GAO report was released, we are now finding out this administration spent more than $4.5 billion of the total $5 billion allocation that was supposed to last until 2014. How did this administration--one that claims to be fiscally responsible, one that claims to be accountable, one that claims to be open--how did this administration allow this program to run out of money years ahead of schedule? It went broke because certain corporations and union-affiliated organizations rushed to grab a taxpayer bailout. It is astonishing that the health care law's supporters forced the American taxpayers to foot the bill to keep private companies' and unions' health insurance benefit promises to their workers. Most Americans would be shocked and outraged to learn the administration did not even require companies to disclose their earnings in order to get the early retiree program funding. Let me repeat that. The Department of Health and Human Services chose to not mandate that employers prove--prove--they needed funding from the early retiree program before approving the applications and then sending them--those corporations and those union plans--taxpayer dollars. The Department of Health and Human Services said: No. Here is your money. News reports indicate small businesses asked the administration to set up a review process to stop government entities and unions from consuming all this early retiree program money. According to the GAO report, the administration refused. They decided to distribute early retiree subsidies on a first come, first served basis. The GAO findings and the House Energy and Commerce Committee report suggest the Obama administration used the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program to reward its political allies. These two reports suggest this administration did so by directing most of the program's resources to plans serving unionized auto and government workers. This is based on the administration's own data: Based on the administration's data, nearly half of the entire $5 billion program will be spent on just 20 entities. It is fascinating that the most money of all--the most money of all--went to the United Auto Workers Retiree Medical Benefits Trust. So how much did the United Auto Workers need? They took over $387 million. Administration officials said the reason they are giving away the taxpayers' money so fast is because the program is so popular. Spending money fast does not mean this government and this administration is spending taxpayer dollars wisely. Similar to so many parts of the health care law, the early retiree program just throws money at a problem rather than trying to fix it. We could have worked together in Congress. We could have worked together to help our Nation's early retirees have better access to health insurance. We could have done it by enacting meaningful health care reform--health care reform that actually lowers the cost of medical care. Remember, that is what the President promised. That is what he promised in a joint session of Congress. He stood there, and he said under his plan the cost of health insurance would actually go down. He used the term ``about $2,500 per family per year.'' That is what he promised; that the cost of health insurance for American families would go down by $2,500 a year. What are families at home seeing? They continue to see the cost of their health insurance go up--and go up a lot. The President and Washington Democrats squandered their chance to enact real health care reform, and they did that the moment they decided to ram a very partisan health care law through Congress and ignore the cries of the American people--people at home who said: Stop. Do not do this. Now the American people are seeing, once again, the consequences of those actions by this President and the Democratically controlled Congress, seeing that the consequences are ones they, the American people, continue to have to pay for. It is time to repeal the President's health care law. We need to get back to patient-centered care, the care people need, from the doctor they want, at a cost they can afford. At this point, I continue to come to the floor because I continue to believe this health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for the American taxpayers. That is why, as I go home every weekend and talk to people around my home State, they say: This was not passed for me. This was a law passed for somebody else. It is why seniors on Medicare know $500 billion under the health care law was taken from Medicare, not to save Medicare but to start a whole new government program for other people. It is why the popularity of this health care law actually continues to go down--and it is less popular today than it was the day it was passed. It is time to repeal the President's health care law and replace it with health care proposals to help Americans get the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a cost they can afford. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to speak today in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline is one of the largest shovel-ready infrastructure projects in the United States. It would bring oil from North Dakota and from Canada to refineries along the gulf coast and in the Midwest. The pipeline would strengthen America's energy security and create tens of thousands of new jobs. These are good-paying jobs. But don't take my word for it, just consider what representatives of organized labor have had to say. The president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO said: [A]ny discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: JOBS. He went on to say: Throughout America's Heartland, the Keystone Pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs . . . without one single dollar of government assistance. The general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters said: The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate. Consider the remarks of the general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America. He said: This project . . . is not just a pipeline, but . . . a lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women. House Democrats also recognize the importance of this Keystone XL Pipeline. This summer, 47 House Democrats voted in favor of the bill to require a decision on the pipeline by November 1. On October 19, 22 House Democrats wrote a letter to the President. This is what they told President Obama: America . . . cannot afford to say no to this privately funded . . . jobs-creating infrastructure project. They went on to say: It is in our national interest to have a Presidential Permit issued for the Keystone XL Pipeline as soon as possible. Senate Democrats also support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Senator Baucus of Montana said: We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford further delays to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Senator Tester, also from Montana, said: The Keystone Pipeline will create Montana jobs and it should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down decision. Senator Manchin of West Virginia said: I'm for the Keystone Pipeline . . . all the trade unions, everyone's for it. It creates thousands of jobs. Senator Begich and Senator Landrieu have also written in support of the pipeline. Until recently, President Obama suggested that he too believed the pipeline to be in the interests of the United States. On April 6, the President held a townhall event in Pennsylvania. There, he received a question about Canadian oil sands production. In response, the President of the United States discussed the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is what he said: . . . importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly is a good thing. . . . Let me repeat. The President of the United States said: . . . importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly is a good thing. . . . However, on November 10, the President reversed course, and he showed a different side. After protests from environmentalists, the President decided to punt his decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 Presidential election. Many in the press say the President delayed his decision so that environmental activists would turn out on election day to support him. If true, the President's decision to delay the approval of the pipeline was not only political, it was also cynical--cynical because these environmental activists believe they can shut down Canadian oil sands production. They believe they can shut down the production by stopping construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. It simply is not true, and the President knows it. But maybe the President does not want to be honest with these environmental activists. Maybe he just doesn't want to disappoint them. He doesn't want his political base to stay home on election day. But don't take it from me; consider what Austan Goolsbee had to say. Many Members of this Chamber know he is the former Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, this White House Council-- President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. This is what he said: It is a bit naive to think that the tar sands would not be developed if they don't build that pipeline. Eventually, it's going to be built. It may go to the Pacific, it may go through Nebraska, but it is going to be built somewhere. Again, Mr. Goolsbee was President Obama's top economic adviser. Why are the Canadian oil sands going to be developed? Because the oil sands are a huge national asset for Canada, and Canada will not allow that asset to be stranded. Let's consider the findings of the Canadian Research Institute. This is an independent, not-for-profit research entity that was established in 1975. Its mission is to provide relevant, independent, and objective economic research on energy and environmental issues. This June, they released a report. It was entitled ``Economic Impacts of Staged Development of Oil Sands Projects in Alberta from 2010 to 2035''--a 25-year future look. This report looked at a variety of scenarios, including one in which no new pipeline capacity is built. Under that scenario, the institute estimated that the total impact on Canada's GDP would be about $2.3 trillion over those 25 years. It also estimated that the compensation for Canadian employees will reach almost $650 billion over this same period. It estimated that the direct, indirect, and induced employment in Canada will grow from 390,000 jobs to a peak of 490,000 jobs in 2020, just 9 years from now. It also estimated that the royalties to Alberta will go from approximately $3.6 billion in 2010 to a peak of $22.6 billion in 2020-- in 10 years, from $3.6 billion to $22.6 billion in royalties to Alberta. Again, the Canadian Energy Research Institute made all of these estimates assuming that no additional pipeline capacity will be built. What do these estimates mean? They mean Canada will continue to develop its oil resources whether or not Keystone XL Pipeline or any other pipeline is built. It means the environmental activists trying to shut down oil sands production are naive at best. It also means that the President, President Obama, is once again failing to lead, that he once again is failing to be forthright with the American people, and that he is unwilling and failing to make difficult decisions. The President is showing that he thinks his job is really the only job that matters. Of course we all know Canada will not sit idly by. Canada will add additional pipeline capacity whether or not Keystone XL Pipeline is built. Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has said that the decision to delay approval of Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates ``the necessity of making sure that we're able to access Asian markets for our energy products.'' That is what the Canadian Prime Minister had to say. He was just in Washington last week. Alberta's Premier, Alison Redford, said that the decision to delay approval of the pipeline ``is a clear reminder about the strategic importance of diversifying our export markets.'' ``A clear reminder about the strategic importance of diversifying our export markets.'' In other words, Canada has a tremendous amount of oil, and Canada will ensure that its oil is brought to market. It may go to the United States, it may go to China, it may go to another country, but Canada's oil will be brought to market. Thus, the question for President Obama is very simple, very straightforward: Is it in America's interests to reduce our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf and from Venezuela? Is it in America's interest to create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time of 8.6 percent unemployment? The answer is abundantly obvious. The answer, of course, is, yes, it is in America's best interests to reduce our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela. It is in America's interest to create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time of 8.6 percent unemployment. It is time that the President starts to say yes and stops saying no to jobs and to energy--yes to energy security, yes to tens of thousands of new good-paying jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Clay Robbins, who is an intern serving in the office of Senator Merkley, the Presiding Officer, have the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to join with the Senator from Texas and agree with her about the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and agree with her comments about the economy in this country and our need to focus on jobs and debt and the spending. I agree with her and I agree with the majority of the American people. That is why I am here today to talk about the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We are at a time in the calendar year where the holidays are rapidly approaching. Americans across the country are looking very closely at their budget. That is what families do, they look at their budget and they consider what costs are out there and what money is available to deal with those costs. They are looking at gifts and travel and holiday celebrations. They are carefully balancing their regular monthly expenses with these additional special costs in order to avoid starting the new year with a mountain of new debt. Americans understand there are consequences for irresponsible spending. Folks know if they make decisions which they later decide were not the best decisions, then by New Year's Day bills will come due and they will have real concerns. Formulating a responsible budget is not always easy, but it is absolutely necessary. It is the right, the reasonable, and the responsible approach. The problem is, unlike the rest of this country, Washington does not seem to be concerned about responsible budgeting. In fact, Washington does not seem to be concerned about any kind of budgeting. In Washington, the President is responsible for submitting a budget every year. Congress is then responsible for passing a budget every year. It has not happened this year; it did not happen last year. The House of Representatives did their job when they passed Paul Ryan's budget, but this body, the Senate, did nothing. In fact, this Senate has not passed a budget in over 950 days. What has happened in the last 950 days? Well, in 2010, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: ``The single biggest threat to our national security is our debt . . . '' The single biggest threat to our national security is our debt. Washington did nothing. A year ago this month, the President's bipartisan commission made recommendations to rein in the debt. The recommendations have been largely ignored. More recently, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction failed to present a plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit as required by the legislation. Our national debt is now over $15 trillion. Our credit rating has been lowered for the first time in the history of this great Nation. So here we are, $15 trillion in debt and no real plan to get out of it. The American people deserve better. They expect better. Back home in Wyoming folks understand the importance of balancing budgets and living within their means. What they don't understand is why Washington doesn't get it. A constituent from my hometown of Casper--Mike Brewster is his name--wrote to me earlier this year. Folks in Wyoming like Mike get it. Mike wrote: One of the values that makes our state and our communities so strong is being financially solvent. We do not spend more than we make. If we max out our credit cards, we don't ask for higher credit limits, we cut our spending. To do anything else would label one a fool. Referring to the national debt, he went on in his letter and said: Let's be clear; this is a crisis. This crisis wasn't caused by a lack of revenue; it was caused by spending way beyond our means. The only logical solution is to reduce spending-- that is the ``Wyoming Way.'' That is what your constituents would have to do if they had the same mess in their personal finances, and that is what you must do to properly represent us. Mike is absolutely right, this is a crisis. It is a crisis that could have been prevented and a crisis where we need to solve it by doing the right thing. If we are going to balance Uncle Sam's checkbook, we need to stop charging everything under the Sun to the taxpayers' credit card. That means we need to stop spending more than we take in, and in order to achieve this, I believe that now, more than ever, we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is not something I take lightly. This is the single most important document in our Nation's history, and I am very hesitant to suggest amending it. However, Washington's unwillingness and inability to be responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars has left us no choice. We need to begin the long road to financial recovery by balancing each and every budget. We do it in Wyoming, and Washington should follow suit. The balanced budget amendment is not a new idea. In fact, a bill that would have sent a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification failed by one vote in 1997 right here in the Senate. Over the years many Democrats who serve in the Senate today have voiced their support for a balanced budget amendment. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said: Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I'm for . . . a balanced budget amendment. That was what he said in 2006. Debbie Stabenow had another similar quote in 2000: ``I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.'' Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said back in 1997 when they were voting on a balanced budget amendment: ``I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.'' Senator Tom Harkin said: ``Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again . . . '' We could go on and on with Democrats who in the past stood up to support a balanced budget amendment. It seems to me if folks on the other side of the aisle are serious about balancing the budget, they will support the only balanced budget resolution with teeth. The Republican plan imposes real spending discipline that cannot be undermined by simply raising taxes on hard- working Americans. If we are going to amend the Constitution, we need to make sure the balanced budget requirement cannot be easily sidestepped by either party. The Republican plan does just that. Our creditors will not wait for a politically convenient time to collect our debts. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to reduce those debts. Irresponsible, unsustainable spending and debt has consequences, consequences we simply cannot afford to pay. If you don't believe me, look at Europe. Everyone in this body needs to take a long, hard look at Europe and then decide what future they want for our great Nation. This is not about doing what is right for Democrats or Republicans; it is about doing what is right for all Americans and for this entire country. As Art Middlestadt from Cheyenne, WY, said in a recent e-mail: Allowing our children to suffer the consequences of Washington's reckless budgeting is unconscionable. Well, this is about showing Art and the rest of America that we hear them and we understand them. Families know this, individuals know this, and the sooner Washington knows this, the better. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of balancing the Federal budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as I have so many times since the President's health care bill was signed into law, with a doctor's second opinion. I do that because I practiced medicine in Wyoming, taking care of families from around the State for about a quarter of a century. When I talk to patients at home and I talk to people on the street, when I talk to folks all around my State and around the country, what I hear they want from a health care law was an opportunity to have the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. But what we have gotten in this country through this administration and this health care law is a law that is bad for patients, in my opinion; bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients; and terrible for American taxpayers. So I come to the floor again with a second opinion today because I am thinking about job creation. We just heard about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the opportunity there with a shovel-ready project to get people back to work. I am reminded what former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed after the health care law was passed. She said it would ``create 4 million jobs.'' She went on to say ``400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' As we all know, that prediction never came true. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the health care law will actually encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market altogether. This past week when the employment statistics came out we saw that over 300,000 Americans have withdrawn from the labor market altogether. It is interesting that about the same time the health care law was signed, March 2010, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator, claimed on ``Meet the Press'': . . . as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular. In fact, this health care law is less popular now, today, December 2011, than it was at the time it was signed into law. We look at all of these predictions that never came true. It has been 20 months. The health care law's popularity remains low. The law is in front of the Supreme Court to deal with the constitutionality of this government going into the homes of American people, telling them they must buy a product. It is clear that Washington Democrats and the President have miscalculated. They made promise after promise to the American people. They asked families, they asked businesses all across the Nation, to trust them. The President promised that if you like what you have, you can keep it. The American people know that promise has been broken. The President said that premiums, health care premiums or insurance costs for families would drop by $2,500 per family per year. We know that the costs have gone up higher than if the law had never been passed in the first place. Week after week we hear of more unintended consequences within the law, glitches that are found which show additional problems with the law and additional promises of the President being broken. The American people know that they do not like this health care law. When you ask them do you think this health care law was passed for you or for someone else, most Americans will tell you that they think it was passed for someone else. Today I want to talk about two specific examples of problems with this health care law and the possible unintended consequences and some of the repercussions of the things that have happened with this health care law. One has to do with the labor statistics that came out on December 2 of this year. They released updated payroll employment and unemployment numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data actually shows that health care employment was up in November. It was up for all the wrong reasons. The problem is, the health care law's excessive mandates and burdensome regulations are prompting the health care industry to create additional administrative jobs, not caregiver jobs. The health care law was supposed to actually work to get more doctors and more nurses and more x-ray techs and physical therapists to take care of patients, but that is not what happened. Now we see it is administrative jobs that are up, not caregiver jobs. As a matter of fact, USA Today printed a half-page article, and the title was ``Health Care Jobs Grow . . . in Administration.'' The article actually talked about a New Hampshire hospital, and that hospital--according to the article--was forced to eliminate 5 percent of its workforce. So we have a hospital eliminating 5 percent of the workforce after the State cut Medicaid funding last year. So here is a hospital where 5 percent of the workforce is cut. Many of those workers were nurses and other caregivers. When I hear caregivers, I think of physical therapists, radiation technologists, nurse's aides. Yet in spite of the fact that they had to eliminate 5 percent of its workforce, they are actually still hiring. How can that be? Let's listen to what the hospital's vice president, Mark Whitney said. He said: We need to deal with new technology, new services, new regulations, electronic health records, government reporting requirements on quality . . . a lot of this is related to the new Federal health law. So they are eliminating nursing positions, eliminating positions of caregivers and hiring more people to push paper. The President and the Democrats in Congress promised their health care law would expand health insurance coverage. Look at what is happening now. More and more people are pushing paper. It is interesting that what the President and Democrats did not tell the American people is that the health care law's oppressive mandates, burdensome regulations would actually cause health care employers to lay off or stop hiring the very health care professionals needed to treat patients. Instead, the health care employers must be hiring more clerks, more administrators, more paper pushers, all in an effort to figure out and then comply with the health care law's rules and mandates. I do not believe that is the change most Americans wanted when they started to think about health care reform. The second example I would like to give is from a column in the Washington Post, December 2 of this year--just a week or so ago-- written by George Will. The article is titled ``Choking on Obamacare.'' The article talks about the health care law's crushing insurance mandates and how those influence both small and large businesses in terms of their willingness to actually hire new workers. When we have this kind of record unemployment, such as we are dealing with in this country, we want to have businesses hire more people, get people back to work. That is what makes America grow. That is what helps our economy, putting people back to work. In the article, they use the example of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants. There are about 3,200 of those restaurants around the world. The parent company said they have created about 70,000 jobs, and they want to hire more workers. But the CEO of the company, Andy Puzder, said they cannot hire more workers because they don't know how much they will need to spend on health care. They are planning to spend about $18 million on health care, and they say that is just a guess. If someone is running a business, they want to be able to figure out what their future costs are going to be, what the expenses are going to be, and they would rather have a little more predictability than just guessing. Thanks to the health care law's complex formulas and many regulations which have not yet been released and many of the uncertainties that continue to exist, this is a company that is going to have to guess about how much they will need to spend on health care. What business can afford to guess what one of their largest costs is going to be? They are guessing they are going to have to spend about twice the amount of money on health care as they did building new restaurants last year. So they talk about building new restaurants--and those are construction jobs and jobs for the people who work in the restaurants providing services--and they are going to end up spending twice as much on health care as building new restaurants. It doesn't take a lot to realize that hindering a company's ability to build new restaurants means fewer available jobs for construction workers and for service suppliers in a struggling economy. The CEO of the company is right when he says that ``employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.'' If we want to spur the economy and economic growth and job creation, Washington must take its shackles off our job creators. This is just one more reason why the President's health care law must be repealed and replaced. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Rio Smith for his hard work as an intern in the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Rio is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Cheyenne Central High School. He attends Stonehill College in Massachusetts where he is majoring in business administration. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the time he has been with us. I want to thank Rio for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kaitlynn Glover for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Kaitlynn is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Natrona County High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in agriculture communications. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Kaitlynn for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mandi Mosher for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Mandi is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Glenrock High School. She attends the University of Wyoming where she is majoring in social work. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the time she has been with us. I want to thank Mandi for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Haley Barton for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Haley is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Lander Valley High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science and history. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Haley for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Amy Black for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Amy is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Kelly Walsh High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Amy for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have over the past year and a half, as a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century. I go home every weekend and visit with my former patients, my former colleagues. As I talk to people around the State of Wyoming about the newly passed health care law, their concerns are those we have heard from around the country and certainly those on the Senate floor. That is why I keep coming back to the Senate floor with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. What we know patients would like in terms of health care is that the care they get is the care they need from the doctor they want, at a cost they can afford. For many people across this country, a cost they can afford is a major issue, which is why I think so many people were happy to hear the President say, in his initial talk about what he was proposing for health care in this country, we need to get the cost of health care down. He said: If his bill were to pass and become law, the cost of care would drop about $2,500 per family across the United States. That is what people were looking forward to. In so many ways, the President overpromised and underdelivered because what people have seen is the cost of their health care has continued to go up as a result of the President's health care law. The States around the country are now looking at ways to deal with this health care law. Many States have set up committees to deal with it based on their State legislatures, and we have done the same thing in my home State of Wyoming. In Wyoming, we have asked for a study to be done to take a look at what the impacts of the President's health care law would be on health care and the cost of care in our State. A report was authored by a Massachusetts group called Gorman Actuarial. The report examined how the health care reform law passed last year by Congress is going to affect the State of Wyoming specifically. This information is being used in Wyoming by our Health Benefits Exchange Steering Committee. That is the committee which is reviewing various options for a State-run health exchange, and that is what people are looking at: What is the best thing to do for our State. As they have come upon this work effort, what they are telling us is about the individual market for insurance--people who end up buying insurance individually because they don't get it necessarily through work; purchasing insurance in different ways, but they have to buy their insurance on the individual market. This report says that in Wyoming, as a result of the health care law, the current individual market enrollees will see average premiums increase by 30 to 40 percent based on the components of the law. Some supporters of the law say: Well, they are going to get more insurance than they would otherwise, and that is true because they are going to get a government-mandated amount of insurance which may be a lot more insurance than they want or need. That is one of the fundamental problems of this health care law, government-mandated levels of insurance. Many people in Wyoming feel they don't want that level of care, which is why I believe individuals should be able to opt out of this provision of the health care law. States ought to be able to opt out. States and individuals ought to be able to receive a waiver. But right now, that is not happening. So what we are seeing in Wyoming is a significant increase in the cost--not the decrease the President promised but an increase in the cost of health insurance beyond what it would have gone up had there not been a health care law at all. I talk to young people around the State--and I met with a number of young people from my State just the other evening--and they ask about this and how it is going to affect the young. What we see is their rates are going to go up quite a bit. A lot has to do with the fact that there is--that the lowest amount they can end up charging someone who is young and then compare that to someone who is older, the ratio is 3 to 1. So for someone who is not very healthy and older, they will only be paying three times what a younger person will be paying based on what passed this House and this Senate. That means that for those younger people, they are going to pay a lot more than they necessarily would based on their own good health, exercise habits, fitness, diet, and in terms of what their real costs ought to be to be insured. I guess it is not a surprise when we saw the election results coming out of the State of Ohio Tuesday a few weeks ago about the specific individual mandate that said everyone has to buy insurance. On that day, on election day in Ohio, 66 percent of the voters said they didn't want this government mandate, a mandate that people must buy government-approved insurance. They don't want that to apply to them. Two-thirds of the people in Ohio on election day voted against the mandate, which is not unusual to see because we have seen that across the country. We have seen that in Missouri last year on balloting day. We saw it in the new national polls. This health care law is less popular now than it was the day it was signed. People continue to want to be able to get out from underneath the health care law. That is why I continue to come to the Senate floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion as more information becomes available, just as this study in Wyoming became available. The President's promise, ``If you like what you have you can keep it,'' we are finding out is not true, and the fact that the President promised health care premiums would drop for families by $2,500 per family is not true. That is why I continue to believe this health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and it is bad for the taxpayers of this great country. That is why it is time to repeal and replace this broken health care law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. There are still questions that need to be answered and information that needs to be provided by Mr. Kopocis. I am concerned about the depth of his past involvement to change the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond congressional intent. To me, this nominee still needs to explain his views on public and stakeholder input on regulations he would be in charge of and explain his understanding--his understanding--of the role of Congress versus the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of who makes the laws in this country. Until those issues are clarified, I do not believe it is appropriate for this nominee to move forward. Therefore, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate and thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his continued leadership on the issue of health care. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, he has been a stalwart and strong supporter in efforts to get for the American people the health care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford, and amazing in his fight against what this body, what the House of Representatives, and what the President have forced onto people all across this country, which, to me, has been bad for patients, bad for the providers of those patients--the nurses and doctors who take care of them--and terrible for taxpayers. That is why week after week I come to the floor to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, and why I am so pleased to be here with my colleague today to join in the introduction of this piece of legislation. As people all around the country know--those who listened to the many speeches given during the debate on health care--the President and Democrats in Washington promised the American people this trillion dollar health care spending law would lower health insurance premiums. That is what the President promised, that health insurance premium costs would go down. Well, the American people have now had 19 months to review what is in the health care law, and they are finding that the President and the Washington Democrats sold them a bill of goods. On September 27 of this year, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued its annual survey of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums. The report showed that employer-provided health insurance premiums rose-- went up, not down--$1,303 for an average family last year alone. Remember--and we do--that the President repeatedly promised his health care law would reduce the average annual family premium by $2,500. Yet the exact opposite of what the President promised has occurred. The Kaiser Family Foundation report shows significant premium increases, not savings as the President promised. Not only are premiums continuing to climb, but the President and Washington Democrats paid for their health care spending law by imposing billions of dollars in new taxes on American business and American consumers. Independent experts agree these taxes only serve to increase an individual, a family, or a small business's cost to buy medical coverage. Specifically, section 9010 of the health care law creates a new $60-plus billion tax on health insurance plans starting in 2014. The health care law slaps this tax on all health insurance companies based on net premiums in what is called the fully insured market. This means the tax an insurance company must pay is equal to the percent of their market share. The larger the insurance company's market share, the higher their annual health insurance tax becomes. The aggregate tax in 2014 is $8 billion and climbs to $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, eventually reaching over $14 billion in 2018. After that, the law mandates the health insurance tax grow by premium inflation. More inflation, higher taxes. Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin released a study in March of this year estimating the health insurance tax could exceed $87 billion between 2014 and 2020. Some on the other side of the aisle want to message this tax as a ``health insurance fee.'' I would say to my friends all across this country, Do not be fooled. This new tax directly hits small business. The Joint Committee on Taxation makes it clear the insurance tax will be borne by consumers in the form of higher prices, by owners of firms in the form of lower profits, by employees of those firms in the form of lower wages, or by other suppliers to the firms in the form of lower payments. Remember, this tax only hits health insurance companies that sell their products in the fully insured market. As we have learned, and heard earlier on the Senate floor, 87 percent of small businesses buy their health insurance in this fully insured market. The fully insured market is also the place that uninsured individuals and the self-employed go when they need to purchase medical insurance. Insurance companies selling plans to individuals and small businesses are the ones that are hit with the tax. The new tax doesn't hit large, self-insured businesses. Ultimately, uninsured individuals, small businesses, and their employees are the ones who are going to end up paying this unfair tax. This new punitive tax will add hundreds of dollars to family and small business insurance premiums every year. The Wyoming Blue Cross Blue Shield Association tells me that a Wyoming family of four will see a premium increase because of this tax of over $300 in 2014. In 2018, that same Wyoming family of four will see over a $500 premium increase as a result of the tax. These premium increases will have been passed through to consumers as a direct result of this health care law's tax component--what the President and the Democrats in this body have foisted on the American public. Additionally, the Holtz-Eakin March 2011 study proves the health insurance tax will raise premiums by as much as 3 percent or nearly $5,000 for a family of four over the next decade. What American family, I ask you, can afford to see their take-home pay reduced by $5,000 over the next decade thanks to the President's new tax. The Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9 percent. There are 14 million Americans, people across our country, unemployed and looking for work. Struggling American families cannot bear the brunt of President's Obama's new tax. A recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business found this health insurance tax will force the private sector to shed somewhere between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. More than half of those losses will fall on the backs of small businesses. Two million small businesses across this country cannot afford President Obama's new tax. Twenty-six million workers, who get their insurance through their employer, cannot afford President Obama's new tax. And the 12 million people who buy health insurance plans on their own in the individual market cannot afford President Obama's new tax. That is why today we introduce legislation called the Jobs and Premium Protection Act. I introduced this bill along with my friend, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch. Our legislation is simple and straightforward. It eliminates the health care law's punitive tax on every individual, family, and small business that chooses to do the right thing and buy health insurance. Unbelievably, the health care law punishes individuals and punishes small businesses, the very two groups who find buying health insurance at an affordable price extremely challenging. Why would the Federal Government implement policies that make it harder by imposing a tax on the products these individuals buy? Some must believe that insurers will simply be able to absorb the tax. Well, experts tell us that assumption is false. Here is what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said in a letter to Senator John Kyl in June of this year: We expect a very large portion of the insurance industry fee to be passed forward to purchasers of insurance in the form of higher premiums. A very large portion, they say. Then they go on to say: Eliminating this fee would decrease the average family premium in 2016 by $300 to $400. Isn't that what we want, to lower the cost of insurance for individuals? This is the way to do it. Finally, the Joint Committee on Taxation letter confirms the following: Repealing the health insurance industry fee would reduce the premium prices of plans offered by covered entities by 2 to 2\1/2\ percent. This ill-conceived discriminatory tax must be eliminated. It must be stopped well before it starts to impact individuals, families, and small businesses. Our bill is a critical piece of pro-business legislation. It has the support of organizations such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and America's health insurance plans. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the cost of insurance for families of America, who are shocked and surprised, some in disbelief, that what the President promised the American people--of a reduction in premiums--isn't true, and who want to try to in a little way right that wrong to do so by cosponsoring and supporting the Jobs and Premium Protection Act. I thank the Chair and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch--especially Senator Hatch--for his leadership and for joining me in introducing this legislation today. The time has come to eliminate a bad policy that not only increases health insurance costs but also negatively impacts America's job creators.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate and thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his continued leadership on the issue of health care. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, he has been a stalwart and strong supporter in efforts to get for the American people the health care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford, and amazing in his fight against what this body, what the House of Representatives, and what the President have forced onto people all across this country, which, to me, has been bad for patients, bad for the providers of those patients--the nurses and doctors who take care of them--and terrible for taxpayers. That is why week after week I come to the floor to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, and why I am so pleased to be here with my colleague today to join in the introduction of this piece of legislation. As people all around the country know--those who listened to the many speeches given during the debate on health care--the President and Democrats in Washington promised the American people this trillion dollar health care spending law would lower health insurance premiums. That is what the President promised, that health insurance premium costs would go down. Well, the American people have now had 19 months to review what is in the health care law, and they are finding that the President and the Washington Democrats sold them a bill of goods. On September 27 of this year, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued its annual survey of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums. The report showed that employer-provided health insurance premiums rose-- went up, not down--$1,303 for an average family last year alone. Remember--and we do--that the President repeatedly promised his health care law would reduce the average annual family premium by $2,500. Yet the exact opposite of what the President promised has occurred. The Kaiser Family Foundation report shows significant premium increases, not savings as the President promised. Not only are premiums continuing to climb, but the President and Washington Democrats paid for their health care spending law by imposing billions of dollars in new taxes on American business and American consumers. Independent experts agree these taxes only serve to increase an individual, a family, or a small business's cost to buy medical coverage. Specifically, section 9010 of the health care law creates a new $60-plus billion tax on health insurance plans starting in 2014. The health care law slaps this tax on all health insurance companies based on net premiums in what is called the fully insured market. This means the tax an insurance company must pay is equal to the percent of their market share. The larger the insurance company's market share, the higher their annual health insurance tax becomes. The aggregate tax in 2014 is $8 billion and climbs to $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, eventually reaching over $14 billion in 2018. After that, the law mandates the health insurance tax grow by premium inflation. More inflation, higher taxes. Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin released a study in March of this year estimating the health insurance tax could exceed $87 billion between 2014 and 2020. Some on the other side of the aisle want to message this tax as a ``health insurance fee.'' I would say to my friends all across this country, Do not be fooled. This new tax directly hits small business. The Joint Committee on Taxation makes it clear the insurance tax will be borne by consumers in the form of higher prices, by owners of firms in the form of lower profits, by employees of those firms in the form of lower wages, or by other suppliers to the firms in the form of lower payments. Remember, this tax only hits health insurance companies that sell their products in the fully insured market. As we have learned, and heard earlier on the Senate floor, 87 percent of small businesses buy their health insurance in this fully insured market. The fully insured market is also the place that uninsured individuals and the self-employed go when they need to purchase medical insurance. Insurance companies selling plans to individuals and small businesses are the ones that are hit with the tax. The new tax doesn't hit large, self-insured businesses. Ultimately, uninsured individuals, small businesses, and their employees are the ones who are going to end up paying this unfair tax. This new punitive tax will add hundreds of dollars to family and small business insurance premiums every year. The Wyoming Blue Cross Blue Shield Association tells me that a Wyoming family of four will see a premium increase because of this tax of over $300 in 2014. In 2018, that same Wyoming family of four will see over a $500 premium increase as a result of the tax. These premium increases will have been passed through to consumers as a direct result of this health care law's tax component--what the President and the Democrats in this body have foisted on the American public. Additionally, the Holtz-Eakin March 2011 study proves the health insurance tax will raise premiums by as much as 3 percent or nearly $5,000 for a family of four over the next decade. What American family, I ask you, can afford to see their take-home pay reduced by $5,000 over the next decade thanks to the President's new tax. The Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9 percent. There are 14 million Americans, people across our country, unemployed and looking for work. Struggling American families cannot bear the brunt of President's Obama's new tax. A recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business found this health insurance tax will force the private sector to shed somewhere between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. More than half of those losses will fall on the backs of small businesses. Two million small businesses across this country cannot afford President Obama's new tax. Twenty-six million workers, who get their insurance through their employer, cannot afford President Obama's new tax. And the 12 million people who buy health insurance plans on their own in the individual market cannot afford President Obama's new tax. That is why today we introduce legislation called the Jobs and Premium Protection Act. I introduced this bill along with my friend, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch. Our legislation is simple and straightforward. It eliminates the health care law's punitive tax on every individual, family, and small business that chooses to do the right thing and buy health insurance. Unbelievably, the health care law punishes individuals and punishes small businesses, the very two groups who find buying health insurance at an affordable price extremely challenging. Why would the Federal Government implement policies that make it harder by imposing a tax on the products these individuals buy? Some must believe that insurers will simply be able to absorb the tax. Well, experts tell us that assumption is false. Here is what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said in a letter to Senator John Kyl in June of this year: We expect a very large portion of the insurance industry fee to be passed forward to purchasers of insurance in the form of higher premiums. A very large portion, they say. Then they go on to say: Eliminating this fee would decrease the average family premium in 2016 by $300 to $400. Isn't that what we want, to lower the cost of insurance for individuals? This is the way to do it. Finally, the Joint Committee on Taxation letter confirms the following: Repealing the health insurance industry fee would reduce the premium prices of plans offered by covered entities by 2 to 2\1/2\ percent. This ill-conceived discriminatory tax must be eliminated. It must be stopped well before it starts to impact individuals, families, and small businesses. Our bill is a critical piece of pro-business legislation. It has the support of organizations such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and America's health insurance plans. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the cost of insurance for families of America, who are shocked and surprised, some in disbelief, that what the President promised the American people--of a reduction in premiums--isn't true, and who want to try to in a little way right that wrong to do so by cosponsoring and supporting the Jobs and Premium Protection Act. I thank the Chair and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch--especially Senator Hatch--for his leadership and for joining me in introducing this legislation today. The time has come to eliminate a bad policy that not only increases health insurance costs but also negatively impacts America's job creators.