John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. We have talked about this. There is a program that his patients and mine have enjoyed, called Medicare Advantage, and there is an advantage for patients signing up for that program. About one in four Americans on Medicare signs up for Medicare Advantage. The advantages of this program are that it coordinates care, works with preventive care. Yet, the President has targeted that for elimination. By 2017, half of the people on this program, who say they like and have it, will no longer be eligible to participate in it because of this health care law. We explain that to the American people in our second opinion on ``Medicare and You.'' Finally, Dr. Coburn talked about the IPAB, the Independent Payment Board. It is a rationing board to me, a board designed to deny and refuse care. These are unelected bureaucrats. They don't need to have a medical background or don't necessarily need to see patients. It is specifically related to cutting the amount of money that is paid for patients to have procedures, to see physicians, and to get the care they need, which is why there is great concern throughout this country and why the President's health care law becomes more unpopular every day.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Dr. Coburn for his significant leadership in this area. Medicare patients all across the country are getting a thick book--150 pages or so. In Wyoming, it is about 150 pages, and it is called ``Medicare and You, 2012.'' Under Dr. Coburn's leadership, we have prepared a report, also called ``Medicare and You, 2012,'' but it is, as I do week after week, a second opinion about the big book people are getting at home. The cover is quite distinct from the book that goes to other Medicare patients around the country, because this starts by saying ``Your Medicare Program was cut $530 billion by President Obama's controversial health care law and used for a brand new program for someone else.'' That is the fundamental problem here. When we talk about Medicare, we think of our parents and others, and I think of so many of my patients on Medicare. We need to strengthen Medicare. What this administration did by taking $530 billion from the health care law has not strengthened Medicare; it devastated Medicare and our seniors on Medicare to the point where the Medicare Actuary said the funding will be exhausted by 2016--5 years from now. We go through that in this report. My concern is that my patients and Dr. Coburn's patients will see their health care impacted by a denial of care, by care being refused because of the limitations within the law and the significant impact on physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and home health agencies, which are a lifeblood for seniors, all as a result of what we have seen passed and signed into law by this President. It is interesting, because we recently heard from the Senator from Ohio, who talked about the vote in Ohio on Tuesday. What was not brought up is that there was another ballot initiative specifically related to the Obama health care law. Those same people he was praising so much also voted by 2 to 1--a margin of over a million voters--that they did not want the Obama health care mandate to apply to them. This is no surprise, and the popularity of this health care plan has continued to fall ever since it was signed into law. I ask my colleague, Dr. Coburn, about some of the issues that will impact not just the patients through the payment mechanism but their ability to see a doctor under this Medicare change.

Mr. BARRASSO. This health care law continues to be bad for patients, for providers, for the doctors who take care of them, and it is bad for the taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and their implementing a cap-and-trade program for what is called cross-State air pollution. I oppose this new regulation and I support the resolution of disapproval that we will be voting on later today. Led by the EPA, Washington bureaucrats are tying up America with redtape. They are tying up our Nation and they are tying up the American people. This year alone, the EPA has issued over 400 final rules. These are rules that do have the effect of law. Well, that is over two rules per day so far this year for each day the Federal Register has been open for business in 2011. Imagine any business in the United States, in our home communities-- businesses having to comply with two new EPA rules each day you are open for business. And, of course, if you don't comply, then you face thousands of dollars in fines. This is business as usual for the EPA. Thousands of rules are filling the Federal Register, 70,000 pages this year alone. The costs of rules issued this year are estimated to eclipse the $100 billion mark. It is time to stop Washington bureaucrats. They are issuing excessive rules without considering their impact on our economy. The problem is that this administration does not believe there is a regulations problem. They think more regulations actually create jobs rather than harm jobs. Fortunately, a previous Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, what is called the Congressional Review Act. This law gives us our best tool to dismantle bad regulations, and we should use it when appropriate. Majority Leader Reid, one of the authors of this Congressional Review Act, described the process as a reasonable, sensible approach to regulatory reform. I believe the Senate should use it here today. The Senate should take back some responsibility, instead of letting unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats continue to harm our economy. I am standing here today to support Senator Rand Paul's resolution to nullify the EPA's cross-State air pollution rule. The EPA's cross-State air pollution rule was finalized approximately 3 months ago. It is already costing Americans jobs. Over the summer, officials at a Texas utility threw up their hands and said they can't comply. They said it was too costly, too burdensome, and 500 jobs in Texas were lost as a result. The EPA's own estimates say another 2,500 jobs will be lost because of this very regulation. Private sector analysis puts the job and cost numbers much higher. The cross-State air pollution rule puts limits on electricity generation for over half the country. It forces Washington's heavy hand on over 1,000 coal, gas, and oil-fired facilities across 28 States. Originally designed for States in the East, the EPA now continues to expand the rule to capture more and more States in the West. The newest version of the rule imposes new requirements for Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The compliance costs are very high. By the EPA's own estimate, the rule will cost over $2.4 billion. The EPA also notes that part of these costs will be passed on to U.S. households in the form of higher electricity rates. The cross-State air pollution rule demonstrates how bureaucrats simply do not understand how job creators work and operate their businesses all across this country. The implementation timeline the EPA has proposed is nearly impossible to follow. The rule was finalized on August 8, which leaves less than 6 months for companies and States to act and meet the new mandates by January of 2012. The Office of Management and Budget even warned that there would be consequences of such a drastic change in such a short amount of time. In conclusion, this resolution of disapproval will tell the bureaucrats to do their job but do it following the rules of the road. We all want clean air, and we want it done in a responsible way. This EPA is rushing through rules, causing a train wreck in our economy, our jobs, and our competitiveness as a nation will suffer as a result. Senator Paul's resolution will save at least 3,000 American jobs and also prevent a rise in electricity costs for American families. By adopting this resolution today, we will help our job creators, and help them be more competitive in the global marketplace. It is common sense to rein in the EPA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Both of those are areas where there can be significant savings. Folks have said that if they do this sort of legislative approach to remove this lawsuit abuse, the savings to the Federal budget would be about $50 billion over the budgeting timeframe--$50 billion. Any physician, nurse, practitioner, or physician assistant would say the savings would even be greater because of the additional tests and so- called defensive medicine that is practiced in an effort to protect hospitals, physicians, health care providers from the possibility of a lawsuit. They do a lot of extra diagnostic studies--x rays, CAT scans, MRIs, and blood tests--to try to not miss something, which is very unlikely, but they want to protect themselves from a suit. I think the savings would be even greater, but even the government accountants say it would save $50 billion. The other is the so-called CLASS Act--something one of my Democratic colleagues said was comparable to a Ponzi scheme that even Bernie Madoff would be proud of. It was an accounting gimmick, a bookkeeping trick used during debate and passage of the so-called health care law. It was aimed at trying to bring money in in the first 5 years of an accounting scheme where they would then not have to pay for any services and to start paying for services about the sixth year, and then the expenses would go up and up. What they have now realized and what we realized on this side of the aisle initially, right away, and pointed out on the floor before the vote, is that this could not work long term. In an effort to try to use this scheme to say the health care law would pay for itself, they forced this through, crammed it through, as they did with the rest of the health care law. Now we find out that even the administration says this cannot work, it is not going to work. OK, just repeal that part of the law. Oh, they sure don't want to do that because that would admit it was a scheme from the beginning.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to comment. Section 8 of this Jobs Through Growth Act is the Government Litigation Savings Act. This was something introduced in the House by Cynthia Lummis, a Member of Congress from Wyoming, and myself in the Senate. This legislation will return the Equal Access to Justice Act--or what I refer to as EAJA--back to its original purpose. The small business entity or individual citizen should not have their individual liberties overrun by Washington. EAJA was meant to provide people with limited financial resources--veterans, Social Security claimants, small business owners--the ability to defend themselves against harmful government actions. That is how it was intended to be used. It allows individuals to sue the Federal Government, to recover part of their attorneys' fees and the costs. This was a well-intended law, but it has been exploited--exploited by large environmental groups with large legal departments--and it is being used now as a profit center for these large organizations through litigation against our government, and they are all getting paid to do it. The total amount that has been paid is unknown, and the reason it is unknown is that since 1995 something called the Paperwork Reduction Act defunded all the reporting requirements. There is an attorney in Wyoming, Karen Budd-Falen, who has conducted research to see how much money a lot of these environmental groups have made. She found 14 different environmental groups have brought over 1,200--14 groups have brought over 1,200--Federal cases in 19 States and the District of Columbia. They have collected over $37 million in taxpayer dollars through this Equal Access to Justice Act and similar laws, and this doesn't even include settlements and fees that were sealed from public view. This is what we can find in public documents. Lowell Baier, who is the president emeritus of the Boone and Crockett Club, tracked through the IRS 990 forms and found that of the most litigious so-called nonprofit groups, they average over $9 million a year of taxpayer money, which of course hinders economic growth, limits creation of jobs by individuals and by small businesses and by energy producers, farmers, and ranchers. So I am very happy to see my colleague included our efforts in this overall jobs package because I think these are the sorts of things we are trying to overcome and that make it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. I want to find ways to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs. If I could, we have been talking about the private sector. The majority leader has said: Oh, the problem isn't the private sector. He said it was the public sector--the government. Government is doing just fine. It is the private sector that has lost over 1\1/2\ million jobs from February of 2009 to September of 2011.

Mr. BARRASSO. That is exactly right. I agree. Studies have shown that in the system we live under today, less than one-third of the money actually goes to people who are deserving and ought to be receiving that money, and the other two-thirds goes to the system--lawyers, courts, and expert witnesses. So very little of the money paid in premiums actually gets to the injured party. There are ways to do a better job of that with significant savings in the process--making sure people are appropriately compensated if an injury occurs but at the same time getting savings out of a system which is overwrought with money going to the wrong place and which also results in so many unnecessary tests being done in efforts of doctors and nurses and hospitals to protect themselves.

Mr. BARRASSO. It would. It would undermine the argument of the President, who says this is going to pay for itself, when, in fact, it is not. It is interesting, if you ask people watching at home or when you go to townhall meetings, do you think under this health care law your health care will be better or worse, they will say worse. Very few think it will be improved under this law the President forced through. And then if you ask the same group of people, a cross-section of people in our States, if they think the cost of their care will go down, as the President promised, or go up, they all say it is going to go up. So they are going to have to pay more, get less, and be unhappy with it, which is why I think yesterday in Ohio two-thirds of the voters who turned out--and the margin was over a 1 million voters difference between those for and against. They overwhelmingly voted to say: We don't want to have to live under the Obama health care law; we want to be able to opt out of that, which is all small businesses want to do. They don't want to have to deal with these expensive bandaids. Let's work together and within our States and work with other small businesses, but we don't want to live under these very expensive Washington mandates, which makes it that much harder for us to hire people.

Mr. BARRASSO. I agree with my colleague from Arizona. I thank him for his leadership and congratulate him for the piece of legislation that is currently on the floor. I am here to speak in support of it because I want to get small businesses hiring again and get people back to work. We need to find ways to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs. This health care law my colleague has asked me about is one thing the President promised, saying: If you pass it, health insurance for families will go down--he said about $2,500 per family per year. Instead, we have seen--in response to the Senator-- health insurance rates go up. Across the board, people agree they have gone higher and faster than if the law had never been signed. I think it was interesting and telling yesterday that the voters of Ohio went to the polls and voted overwhelmingly--almost 2 to 1--to say they don't want to be forced to participate in the President's so- called health care law. What people in Ohio and people in my State and in all of the States around the country are asking for--and this is my goal--is to provide people with the care they want from the doctor they want--the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. There are things we need to do, but to put these additional expenses and mandates on the small businesses of this country, the job creators, just makes it harder and more expensive for those small businesses to hire more people. At a time in this Nation when we have 14 million Americans out of work, over 9 percent unemployment, we need to take positive steps to help them get back to work. I view this health care law and the expenses as a heavy, wet blanket on small businesses that are trying to hire people. We know of small businesses around the country that know that the penalties are significant when they hire that 50th employee. We have businesses that could grow, but they are not going to hire that extra person because of the significant expenses to the business. They need some certainty. They are getting so much uncertainty out of Washington with rules, regulations, redtape, the expense of the health care law, and the threats that keep coming of increased taxes. Small businesses and businesses are just not hiring. That is why I am here to commend and compliment my colleague from Arizona for bringing forth to the American people a positive proposal to put people back to work.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support Senator Hutchison and to talk about this role that is being played now by the Federal Communications Commission in terms of regulating the Internet for the very first time. I oppose having these bureaucrats regulating the Internet. I support the resolution of disapproval that is now on the Senate floor. In the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-Candidate Obama made it very clear that he was for empowering Washington's bureaucracy through more redtape. The President was not looking to make Washington more efficient, in my mind, or more effective, but to make Washington bigger, to centralize power in Washington. One of his campaign promises was a new regulation called net neutrality. It appears to me that the President then appointed one of his school friends and basketball buddies to be Chairman of the FCC, possibly with this in mind. So here we are in 2011, and it seems to me that Congress is now being asked to make a decision. I want Congress--I am asking Congress and my colleagues to reverse the course of the bureaucracy. The administration did not even deem this rule to be what they call significant. A significant rule is one that has an impact on the economy of at least $100 million. I believe this is a significant rule. I support Senator Hutchison in her resolution because it will keep the Internet free and open. Republicans and Democrats agree. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution and it had bipartisan support. Net neutrality is very real. The time to act is now. We will be voting in the next day or so, and the reason we need to act now is that the rules of having more bureaucratic government control go into effect in just a few weeks--November 20, 2011. It does seem Congress is being disregarded. Congress has never delegated authority to the FCC to regulate in the past. The Communications Act of 1996 had a goal, which was to ``promote competition and reduce regulations.'' In 1996, Bill Clinton was President. This is what it said--the Communications Act of 1996: The goal, to ``promote competition and reduce regulation.'' Instead, we have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, who are ignoring Congress and voting for regulation of the Internet. Let's look at the overall economy. Right now, we have 14 million Americans who are out of work. The number again this month is 9 percent unemployment in this country. The administration is now making it a priority--a priority--to regulate another sector of our economy over jobs. The FCC has opened the door for Washington bureaucrats to take over one-sixth of our economy. They ought to be focusing on creating jobs, making it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs. But between health care, banking, and now technology, this administration is taking over our economy sector by sector and making it more expensive and harder for the private sector to create jobs. The FCC's actions threaten innovation and investment in America. Regulations are the biggest burden being faced by small businesses in this country today. If you don't believe me, just ask them. The polling of small business owners has said it is regulations coming out of Washington that are their biggest burden today. Technology pioneer and Apple cofounder Steve Jobs warned President Obama about Washington redtape. There is a new biography out about him by Walter Isaacson. He said this: [Jobs] described [to Obama] how easy it was to build a factory in China, and said that it was almost impossible to do these days in America, largely because of regulations and unnecessary costs. This rule we are looking at transfers the future of the Internet out of the hands of the American people, and it makes government the gatekeeper of Internet services. Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker said this: The rules will give government, for the first time, a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed. This means the future of Internet technology--whether on a smartphone, iPad or computer--will be in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. Engineers and entrepreneurs will not be able to give us the Internet we want, at a price we want. Former FCC Commissioner Baker also said: By replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion. No American wants that, but that is what this government is giving to the American people. To me, this means recent Internet service innovations such as 3G and 4G wireless speeds and new fiber networks now become riskier investments. Less investment means every American's ability to access the Internet he or she wants may be affected. Less investment means fewer jobs. Four months ago, President Obama realized he had a regulation problem with independent agencies such as the FCC. He issued an executive order asking independent agencies to review burdensome redtape. Instead of reviewing redtape, they have rolled out even more of it. The Presidential review has fallen woefully short. The President asked independent agencies to produce a plan to reduce regulations within 120 days. Well, 120 days was yesterday. So the 120 days have come and gone, and what we have received once again from this President is more rhetoric and little by way of results. If there was ever an example of an independent agency rule that needs to be put against the President's rhetoric, it is this net neutrality rule. Net neutrality picks winners and losers. It threatens smaller and rural providers. Brett Glass of LARIAT, a wireless Internet service provider in Wyoming, warned the FCC about the effects on smaller providers. He said the redtape will hurt his ``ability to deploy new service to currently underserved and unserved areas.'' He warns that many broadband providers are small businesses that are serving rural communities. Mr. Glass wrote: The imposition of regulations that would drive up costs or hamper innovation would further deter future outside investment in our company and others like it. So here we are. Americans have made it very clear that they oppose Washington worsening the Web. Over 60 percent of voters oppose Washington putting its hands on the Internet. This regulation we are debating is a classic example of Washington trying to fix something that is not broken. Ninety-three percent of Americans are satisfied with their broadband service. Ninety-one percent of Americans are satisfied with their broadband speed. The Internet is working remarkably well. There is a fundamental disconnect with those in Washington who seek a more powerful bureaucracy and those at home in the 50 States of our Union who are seeking a stronger economy. The warnings are real in Wyoming, my State, and all across this country. Congress must step in where the bureaucrats in Washington have overstepped. Senator Hutchison's resolution of disapproval should be supported on both sides of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in the 19 years since his graduation from the University of Wyoming School of Law, Judge Skavdahl has distinguished himself both as an attorney and as a trial judge. After working in the private sector and clerking for U.S. district judge William Downes, Judge Skavdahl was appointed by former Governor Dave Freudenthal to serve as a district judge for Wyoming's Seventh Judicial District. During his time on the State bench, Judge Skavdahl earned the respect of the attorneys and the parties appearing in his court. He earned that respect for his integrity and his ethics to carry out his duties. He earned that respect for his reasoned decisions. He earned that respect for the manner in which he conducts himself in the courtroom and for being prepared and for his knowledge of the law. There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Skavdahl will bring those same skills and that respect for the law that he exhibited in the Seventh Judicial District to the Federal bench. Wyoming's Federal judges have a long tradition of being widely regarded by their peers and respected by the people who appear in their courts. Judge Scott Skavdahl will continue that tradition for many years to come. I know Judge Skavdahl. I know his family. He is a judge I respect and admire from a family I respect and admire. I strongly encourage all of the Members of the Senate to join with Senator Enzi and join with me in supporting Judge Skavdahl's nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I respond to my colleague from Arizona that we all have concerns for the people of America. That is why we were here trying to offer constructive ideas to make sure people would get the care they need, from the doctor that they want, at a price they can afford. We heard the President make promises that the cost of premiums would go down $2,500 a family. We have seen instead the premiums have gone up. We heard the President say: If you like what you have, you can keep it. We saw that we lost out on that. So many people are going to lose the health coverage they like under this new health care law. So I say to my colleague, absolutely there are things we can do and should be doing. It is astonishing. I received through my medical office the AARP Bulletin. On the cover of this AARP Bulletin for this past month, October 2011, the headline is, ``Senate Leader Reid: The Health Care Law Is Already Working.'' This is what the Senate majority leader has said on the cover of the AARP Bulletin. Yet the Kaiser survey that tracks public views about health care every month has come out with their recent numbers, and the results are astonishing. The American people have seen through this health care law to the point that a majority of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the health care law.

Mr. BARRASSO. I think this is devastating for the country. I told the President directly that overall I thought his proposal was going to bankrupt the country. We stood here and debated over a year ago the fact that the Democrats in this body were voting to take $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare--not to save Medicare, but to start a whole new government program for somebody else. And when we talk about long-term care and what people need over the course of their lifetime, they took money away from hospice. They took money away from home health. They continue to take money away from hospitals and the physicians who take care of our seniors.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Which has an advantage because it coordinates care. It does a number of things that are important. I believe this is the reason why last week in the Kaiser poll, the number of individuals who have a very favorable view of the overall health care law has dropped to 12 percent, an all-time low. The number of people who think they will personally be better off under the health care law is only 18 percent, an all-time low. The number of people in the country who think that the country as a whole will be better off due to the health care law stands at 28 percent, an all-time low. The American people realize we need truth, honesty in budgeting. I know my colleague from the Budget Committee is working on that. He has an op-ed I read and has a proposal and is working on that. That is what the American people want. They want some honesty in budgeting, not the kind of politics and budget gimmicks and tricks we see happening here. The American people are tired of being misled and sold a bill of goods. They see through it. They don't like it, they don't want it, and that is why all of the polling on the health care law shows it at an all-time low.

Mr. BARRASSO. You would hear about it. This speaks to the problems we have in this body. When they write legislation in the cloak of darkness, behind closed doors, and come in and vote at 1 in the morning and try to jam things through at a time when an administration calls for openness and transparency and then they do this sort of thing with the books in a manipulative way and try to come up with ways to say that it saves money--in any other true, real business, people would go to jail for this sort of behavior, I would assume. Is it wrong? All the way wrong? We have seen other so-called bets that this administration has made which have the American people scratching their head. Yesterday it was noted that at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bonuses have been paid to 10 of their executives to the tune of over $12 million. I called for the President to cancel those bonuses. The White House is fairly silent on that. Yet when Senator Obama was running for President, he wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary and said: Make sure no bonuses go to Freddie and Fannie. Now under his administration, $12 million, it was reported yesterday, went to 10 executives. It doesn't seem to be a problem now. The White House said there is nothing they can do about it. Well, why not get the Secretary of the Treasury involved? That is what Candidate Obama did in 2008. It is time for this White House to stand up and do what is right.

Mr. BARRASSO. That is exactly the way I read it, that is the way the American people read it, which is why the overall favorability of the health care law now stands at only 34 percent, an all-time low.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the October 2011 issue of the AARP bulletin contains an interesting opinion piece. It was written by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. It is right there on the front page, Senate Leader Reid. His opinion piece is entitled ``The Health Care Law is Already Working.'' I come to the floor, as I do from time to time, to give a doctor's second opinion. I have a second opinion today about the piece in the AARP paper. I find the choice of the words in the title, ``The Health Care Law is Already Working,'' ironic, especially as the American people continue to express negative views about President Obama's health care law. I come to the floor--as a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming and taken care of Wyoming families for a quarter of a century-- to talk about the health care law and to talk about health care in America. What we see is a growing majority of Americans who want to see the entire law repealed and replaced with patient-centered reforms. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at the facts. On October 18, 2011, just last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its monthly health tracking poll. This is a nonpartisan Kaiser survey and it tracks the public views about the health care law, and they have been doing it ongoing. The results this month are truly astonishing. About half of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law. Overall favorability of the health care law stands at just 34 percent, an alltime low. The number of individuals who view the health care law very favorably stands at 12 percent, an alltime low. The number of people who think they will personally be better off due to the health care law stands at 18 percent, an alltime low. The number of individuals who think the country, as a whole, will be better off due to the health care law stands at just 28 percent, an alltime low. Approval of the law among Democrats dropped 13 percentage points to an alltime low. These results make it clear that the new health care law does not work. About 19 months ago, Mr. Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, claimed on NBC's ``Meet The Press'' that: . . . as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular. The President and Washington Democrats miscalculated. They made numerous promises to the American people and they said we need to act fast. We can answer questions later. They asked the American people to trust them. Then the Nation watched as weeks went by, new stories uncovered another health care law glitch, another health care law unintended consequence and another of the President's broken promises. Seniors all around the country know that the President's health care law took over $500 billion from a broken Medicare Program not to save Medicare but to start a whole new government spending program for someone else, not for seniors. Medicare patients know the health care law failed them and failed to address the broken physician payment system. America's seniors understand that Washington Democrats can't cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare and then claim those cuts will not impact their own health care. When we look at Medicaid, Governors all across the country know the health care law's Medicaid expansion will restrict patient access to care and very likely bankrupt our States. Medicare only pays health care providers cents on the dollar. That is why about 40 percent of physicians don't accept Medicaid patients. Having a government health care card doesn't mean patients will actually have access to medical care. We also have concerns since the law was passed about employers dropping coverage. President Obama promised that if Americans liked their current health care plan, under the law, they would be able to keep it. Over the last 19 months, employers have made it clear that the law's mandates are too expensive, threatening their own ability to offer health insurance to their employees. A reputable national consulting firm surveyed employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes. The company produced a report titled ``How U.S. Health Care Reform Will Affect Employees' Benefits.'' The company, McKinsey & Company, found that overall 30 percent of employers will either definitely or probably stop offering employer-sponsored coverage after 2014. That is when the President's health care law goes into full effect. Among employers with a high awareness of the health care law, understanding the specific implications of the law, that number of those who will either definitely or probably stop offering employer-sponsored coverage jumps to 50 percent. At least 30 percent of employers would actually gain economically by simply dropping coverage even if they compensate employees through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. So how did we get from ``if you like the plan you have, you can keep it'' to ``30 percent of employers will either definitely or probably stop offering health insurance''? The problems continue to mount. Recently, on October 20, 2011, Walmart announced its decision to scale back health insurance for some part-time employees. A New York Times article explained that future part-time Walmart employees working less than 24 hours per week won't be allowed to join the company's plan. New part-time employees working between 24 and 33 hours a week won't be able to buy insurance for their spouses. The New York Times article quotes Walmart as saying that the increasing cost of health care is the reason for the change. Now let's take a look at people's premiums. In 2009, President Obama promised that his health care plan would reduce health insurance premiums $2,500 a year for families in America. Well, the opposite has occurred. President Obama's law has forced Americans to pay more for their health care premiums. On September 27, 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued a report showing that the employer average annual family premium increased 9 percent, from $13,770 to $15,073. The employer average annual single premium--the other was a family, now for singles--the single premium increased 8 percent, from $5,049 to $5,429. Of course, part of this premium increase is tied directly to the health care law. Then let's look at the CLASS program. That program has recently failed. Remember, President Obama's health care law established a brandnew Federal long-term care entitlement program. It was referred to as CLASS, but the letters stood for ``Community Living Assistance Services and Supports.'' Well, to qualify, people would have to pay the government a monthly premium for 5 years, and then after those 5 years, they could begin collecting benefits. It is now known that the CLASS program was an intentionally designed budget gimmick. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the CLASS program would reduce the deficit by $86 billion. These ``savings'' came from the premium dollars the CLASS program would collect for the first 5 years, all while the program wasn't required or allowed to pay out any benefits to individuals. So all the money would be coming in. Instead of holding on to that excess money being collected to pay out for future expenses, Washington Democrats here in the Senate used those funds to pay for President Obama's health care law. Fast forward, and we now know for sure that the program is not financially viable and does not work. How do we know that? Well, many of us knew it when it was going on here on the Senate floor a few years ago, but on October 14 of this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration will not implement the CLASS program. An op-ed she has written appeared in the Huffington Post, and it said: . . . as a report our department is releasing today shows, we have not identified a way to make CLASS work at this time. The Obama administration had 19 months to figure out how to implement the program, and they couldn't do it. Administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services knew the CLASS program was unsustainable, and I believe they knew it before President Obama signed the health care law. They knew it, the administration knew it, and the administration failed in their duty to be honest with the American people and tell them. Today, the White House still refuses to admit that the CLASS program is a colossal failure. In the middle of last month, October 17, 2011, White House spokesman Nick Papas said: Repealing the CLASS Act isn't necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long- term care challenges we face as a country. How can the White House admit that this part of the health care spending law will burden taxpayers with yet another unsustainable entitlement program and at the same time demand that it stay on the books? How do they do that? After having received the AARP bulletin with the headline ``The Health Care Law Is Already Working'' from the Senate majority leader, I came to the conclusion that I needed to come to the floor with a second opinion. The health care law needs to be repealed. It must be replaced with reasonable, commonsense, and financially sound alternatives. This health care law is not working. It is not good for patients; it is not good for providers, the doctors and the nurses who take care of those patients; and it is not good for the American taxpayers. I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate as we learn more and more about this health care law. It seems that just about every week or so there is a new, unintended consequence that comes forward, a new concern for patients, a new concern for providers, a new concern for the taxpayers. I will continue to work with my patients and with my colleagues to find a health care law that gets patients the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I listened to the statements made by my colleagues, and I have come to a different conclusion. I think this nominee is actually the wrong person at the worst time. At a time when the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent, when 14 million Americans are looking for work, I would think the President would want to respond appropriately and nominate someone to lead the Commerce Department whose record was consistent with the mission outlined for the Commerce Department. That mission is to promote job creation, to promote economic growth, to promote sustainable development, and improve standards of living for all Americans. So I would think the President would want to nominate someone who has a record of robust job creation. Instead, the President has nominated someone whose political advocacy is, in my opinion, detached from the financial hardships facing tens of millions of Americans today. Most Americans recognize that cap and trade--or, as I call it, cap and tax--is job killing. It is a job-killing energy tax. Yet this nominee has repeatedly advocated for cap-and-trade legislation. He even called the Waxman-Markey legislation a moderate but acceptable bill. There are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support that legislation. I do not. I view it as a tax. The nominee even went so far as to say the legislation was good precisely because it was a good way to hide--to hide--a carbon tax. But is that the role of the Secretary of Commerce: to hide taxes on American businesses, on American families, to make American businesses less competitive, to make it more expensive for them to hire new workers?

Mr. BARRASSO. I want to find ways to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs, not for ways to hide taxes and make it more expensive and harder for the private sector to create jobs. Finally, I wish to point out what happened during the confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. The chairman of the committee, who is here on the floor, questioned Mr. Bryson about coal. Coal is important to the chairman's State, and it is very important in my State, a big part of our economy. He asked for straight, direct answers, which the chairman did not receive, to the point that he actually invited the nominee to visit with him privately in his office to discuss the issue. So I come here today to say, we need a Commerce Secretary who is committed to making American businesses more innovative at home and more competitive abroad--more innovative at home, more competitive abroad. We need someone who will address the problems of high unemployment, slow economic growth, and rising consumer costs aggressively and dispassionately. In my opinion, John Bryson is not that person. Therefore, I will not support nor will I vote for his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to submit for the Record an article written by Ann Wittman, executive director of the Wyoming Beef Council and published October 8, 2011, in the Wyoming Livestock Journal. The article's title is ``Food Day Includes Gravy.'' As Ann correctly points out, Monday, October 24, 2011, is being billed as Food Day with events planned across the Nation. Here in Washington, DC, the National Archives will be hosting a Food Day open house in conjunction with their ``What's Cooking, Uncle Sam?'' exhibit. Of note, the open house is being supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration along with the primary Food Day sponsor, the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It is the Center for Science in the Public Interest's agenda Ann calls into question. As she writes, the group's goal is to ``encourage people around the country to sponsor or participate in activities that encourage Americans to `eat real' and support healthy, affordable food grown in a sustainable, humane way.'' The question must be asked, who is defining what is or what is not sustainable, healthy, and humane? In the article she points out behind the innocent name of the ``Center for Science in the Public Interest'' are groups with very extreme positions such as the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Farm Animal Rights Movement, and FBI-designated terrorist groups, including the Animal Liberation Front. These groups push radical environmental, animal rights, and vegan positions and lifestyles that have very little to do with either science or public interest. The USDA and FDA should not align themselves with fringe groups who push ideology over science. I commend Ann for her research and wise judgment in exposing special interest masquerading as public interest. The material follows. Food Day Includes Gravy (By Ann Wittmann, Executive Director, Wyoming Beef Council) When I started working at the Wyoming Beef Council more than a decade ago, I had fewer gray hairs, fewer wrinkles and enthusiasm that might have been referred to as effervescent. My ideals were grand, my trust was large and I had great faith in the public to seek and gravitate toward the truth. Don't get me wrong, my enthusiasm has not waned, anyone who works with me or in the continental vicinity of me knows that I am passionate about my work, but the direction and means of expressing my enthusiasm has become more focused over the years. It's become less like an exploding soda pop and more like simmering gravy. Several weeks ago I read with great interest an invitation to work with an organization called Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to participate in and facilitate ``Food Day'' activities throughout Wyoming. The invite billed ``Food Day'' as a national event on Oct. 24, 2011 to ``encourage people around the country to sponsor or participate in activities that encourage Americans to `eat real' and support healthy, affordable food grown in a sustainable, humane way.'' Had I received that offer 10 years ago, I would have been shocked to discover the true message and motive behind the effort. After all, the event was created by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and who among us doesn't believe that science should be in the public interest? My older, wiser simmering brain prevailed, however, and held back enthusiasm pending further investigation. Research into the event listed partner organizations as Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Farm Animal Rights Movement and the notorious Humane Society of the United States. Similar to the CSPI group, these organizations have feel-good names that serve to mislead the public. Most of us are aware that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a national nonprofit organization with a $200 million budget raised under the guise of funding pet shelters, but that spends all but one percent of that budget on efforts to eliminate animal agriculture. The other two groups, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and Farm Animals Rights Movement (FARM) may not be as familiar. PCRM, in spite of its name, has a very small number of physicians as members and has direct ties to PETA, as well as several FBI-designated terrorist groups including Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). FARM is a national nonprofit organization promoting a vegan lifestyle through public education and grassroots activism to end the use of animals for food. As cautious as I am about jumping to conclusions, less than 60 seconds into my research I began to think ``Food Day'' was not a beef-friendly event! Sadly, other organizations that have been, and often continue to be, beef-friendly did not come to the same conclusion. Specifically, the American Dietetic Association, the American Culinary Federation and the National Association of City and County Health Officials signed on as partners to this campaign. The five central goals of CSPI Food Day are: reduce diet- related disease by promoting safe, healthy foods; support sustainable farms and limit subsidies to big agribusiness; expand access to food and alleviate hunger; protect the environment and animals by reforming factory farms; promote health by curbing junk-food marketing to kids; and support fair conditions for food and farm workers. This campaign recommends a nearly-vegetarian diet to meet these goals. The fourth goal of protecting the environment and animals by reforming factory farms continues to bring up false claims, such as the fat content of grain-finished beef or the greenhouse gas emissions from cattle. This alone is enough to make a simmering brain steam up and boil over. However, one of the most valuable lessons I have learned in my conversion from carbonation to stove top is to ensure that actions and reactions don't provide unintended publicity to the event or issue. After all, do these folks really need help giving their events more attention? Careful behind-the-scenes work is most often the best way to navigate these waters. Two Wyoming events were posted on the CSPI Food Day website. The first was a mailing to Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinics throughout the state. After discussing my concerns with a long-time beef-friendly contact at Wyoming WIC, she and I decided that sending out checkoff-funded information detailing the true story of beef production was in order. This effort is currently underway. Second, the University of Wyoming posted plans to host their own version of Food Days on Oct. 24-26 to includes a food drive and resource fair along with a harvest dinner made with locally sourced foods. UW Food Days will wrap up on Oct. 26 with a day of trayless dining and cooking demonstrations showcasing local foods. Wyoming Collegiate CattleWomen and other university contacts have been alerted and asked to ensure the events are balanced and the truth about beef production is also available. Nationally, proactive checkoff-funded programs such as panel discussions and national town hall conversations about America's food system are taking place, seeding the environment with positive messages about agriculture. Additionally, national beef checkoff staff has been meeting with several of the afore-mentioned beef-friendly organizations and advisory board members to try and educate them about the beef industry and understand why they are supporting this campaign. State beef councils across the country are meeting with state/local chapters of the organizations on the advisory board for Food Day, as well explaining that, while on the surface Food Day appears to be an initiative to promote healthy foods versus fast-food and junk-food, it is actually a cleverly disguised event by groups opposed to modern food production practices. Ultimately, I believe the true story of beef production and the opportunity to share the reality of the wholesomeness of our product and production methods are enthusiasm worthy and the checkoff will continue to roll along, working proactively, reactively and frequently behind the scenes, like a savory gravy on the back burner, to tell the positive story about our product. For more information about the beef checkoff program visit mybeefcheckoff.com, wybeef.com or contact me at ann.wittmann@wyo.gov.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I know you see this in Georgia and in Mississippi. We know what doesn't work. We know what doesn't work is more borrowing and more spending and overregulation and the threat of raising taxes on people and the job creators of this country. So there is much to be done, and that is why we actually came out with this Jobs Frontier--the western caucus did--because we want to increase affordable American energy. The President, when he was running for office, said under his proposals electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. If you want a productive, vibrant economy, you need low-cost energy, and if you want a secure nation, you need American energy to do that. So when my colleague from the Gulf State of Mississippi talks about energy in the gulf, there is a lot there. I can talk about Wyoming from the standpoint of energy being available on Federal land, which is being blocked by regulations. We ought to be exploring for that energy as well as in Alaska. So there is much we can do to make our country stronger, safer, more secure, better, and more vibrant, but the proposal put forth by the President--and here I agree with my colleague from Mississippi--is another spending bill--just spending--as the first stimulus was. It is a bill that is not going to do what we need to do to get this economy going in a vibrant sense. From my perspective, the No. 1 thing we should do is stop doing what we know doesn't work.

Mr. BARRASSO. I am delighted to be joining my colleagues, Senator Isakson from Georgia, and Senator Wicker is here also from Mississippi. We think this is very important. The leader started talking about today and said we need to focus on jobs. That is what we wanted to focus on for all of the time of the Obama administration. But, no, the President ignored jobs--ignored jobs his first year in office, ignored jobs his second year in office. Here we are more than halfway through his third year in office, and finally the President has noticed what has been on the minds of the American people. This is a President and a majority leader who forced through this body a health care law that is bad for patients; bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients; and bad for taxpayers, ignoring what the American people said they wanted to focus on, which was jobs, the economy, the debt, the spending. We see a majority leader who led this body to adding more to the debt--now $14 trillion in debt--more debt, more spending, more money that is owed to China. We need to put Americans to work. We need to get Americans back to work. The majority leader talked about 14 million Americans looking for jobs. There are over 4 million who have not worked for over a year. In that kind of a situation, it is going to be a lot harder for those folks to ever get a job again--ever get a job again. And the regulations just keep on coming. A month ago, the President came to the Hill, visited, and had a joint session of Congress. He said: I want to get rid of some of these regulations. He said: I can identify regulations--he came out with a list of about $4 billion worth of regulations--to lower the cost of business over the next 5 years. But in the month of September alone, this administration came out with 230 proposed rules and 338 final rules. And if you go to what this administration says that those rules are going to cost the people of this country, cost the job creators of this country, even the administration, using their own numbers, that cost is going to be $10 billion. I heard our colleague from Georgia talk about the paperwork, the compliance officers. Just yesterday, this administration came out, under Dodd-Frank, with new rules and regulations--proposed rules. They took only 11 pages of this massive bill, but only 11 pages, and when you look at the 298 pages of proposed rules that have come out, what do the government regulators, the Obama administration regulators, say it is going to cost the businesses of this country in terms of manhours having to be spent to comply with the paperwork? These aren't my numbers, these aren't Senators Isakson's numbers, these aren't Senator Wicker's numbers. Mr. President, 6,283,000 hours of paperwork. That is what the government experts say is going to have to be spent on paperwork to comply with one component of the Dodd-Frank law. How is that going to help? How is that kind of a drag on a society going to help create jobs? You know, the President says: If the Republicans have ideas, we want to hear them. The majority leader stood here and said: If the Republicans have ideas, we want to hear them. Well, a month ago, a month ago to this day, when the President came to the Hill, earlier that morning a number of colleagues, House and Senate Members, came to talk about a Western Caucus Jobs Frontier bill, a number of bills Republicans have proposed breaking down Washington's barriers to America's red, white, and blue jobs. The majority leader said we ought to spend more money. The President said we ought to spend more money. The President talked about his so- called stimulus plan, and he said it was going to save or create 3.5 million jobs. We have lost millions of jobs since this President came into office. The President talked about green jobs. He said his clean-energy policies would create 5 million new jobs. We have just seen the Solyndra situation--1,100 people fired because of bad bets by this administration. This is an administration that should not be betting with the taxpayers' money. It is not the administration's money. It is not the President's money. That is why the American people are so up in arms. They see what all of this spending is doing, and it is not helping jobs. I see my colleague from Mississippi is here. We can go back and forth and talk about this. I know he has examples and situations in Mississippi. I see them in Wyoming all of the time, people having to deal with the redtape coming out of Washington. The President talks a pretty good game, but when you look at what is happening out there, the American people are very disappointed. The American people deserve better than what they are getting from this administration. So I would ask my colleague from Mississippi whether there are things he sees happening to his friends and neighbors at home that we need to share with the rest of the country?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011. For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development opportunities on tribal trust lands, including energy development. For years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about how Federal laws and regulations governing the management of trust resources, including energy resources, create significant delays and uncertainty in development proposals. This bill represents an effort to deal with some of those concerns, and for the Record I would like to highlight some of its provisions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included an Indian Energy title--Title V--that, in significant part, attempts to deal with these delays and uncertainties that are inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' energy leasing process, by providing Indian tribes with an alternative way to develop their energy resources. However, more than 6 years after the enactment of that act, it appears that no tribe has yet availed itself of the new energy development process authorized in the 2005 Act. This bill includes a number of amendments to the alternative process established back in 2005, all of which are intended to facilitate the use of that section--to make the process easier for Indian tribes to follow and more predictable--be clearing away some of the red tape and other impediments. Another amendment to this process would provide the Indian tribes with some funding to implement the processes authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in a way that should not increase the cost of the program. What this amendment would do is require the Secretary to provide funding to the tribe for its energy development activities in an amount equal any savings that the United States might realize as a result of the Indian tribe pursing this process, since the Indian tribe would be performing many functions itself rather than the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bill requires the Secretary to identify the savings to the United States and make that amount available to the Indian tribe in a separate funding agreement. The ultimate goal of these amendments is to facilitate economic development, provide Indian people with an opportunity to make a good living, and give the tribes greater control over the management and development of their own trust resources. There are other energy-related issues addressed in this bill as well. There is an amendment to section 201 of the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses, where no preliminary permit has been issued, for hydroelectric projects. However, this provision does not affect any preliminary permit or original license issued before the bill's enactment date or any application for an original license where no preliminary permit has been issued that was complete before the date of enactment of the bill. The bill would also authorize a ``biomass demonstration project'' for biomass energy production from Indian forest lands, rangelands and other Federal lands in accordance with program requirements developed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture after consultation with Indian tribes. This amendment would promote the development of tribal biomass projects by providing them with more reliable and potentially long-term supplies of woody biomass materials. There are many other provisions of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2011, but the foregoing items are among the more important. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me as well as the other Senators who have agreed to join as cosponsors. In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving this act expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011. For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development opportunities on tribal trust lands, including energy development. For years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about how Federal laws and regulations governing the management of trust resources, including energy resources, create significant delays and uncertainty in development proposals. This bill represents an effort to deal with some of those concerns, and for the Record I would like to highlight some of its provisions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included an Indian Energy title--Title V--that, in significant part, attempts to deal with these delays and uncertainties that are inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' energy leasing process, by providing Indian tribes with an alternative way to develop their energy resources. However, more than 6 years after the enactment of that act, it appears that no tribe has yet availed itself of the new energy development process authorized in the 2005 Act. This bill includes a number of amendments to the alternative process established back in 2005, all of which are intended to facilitate the use of that section--to make the process easier for Indian tribes to follow and more predictable--be clearing away some of the red tape and other impediments. Another amendment to this process would provide the Indian tribes with some funding to implement the processes authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in a way that should not increase the cost of the program. What this amendment would do is require the Secretary to provide funding to the tribe for its energy development activities in an amount equal any savings that the United States might realize as a result of the Indian tribe pursing this process, since the Indian tribe would be performing many functions itself rather than the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bill requires the Secretary to identify the savings to the United States and make that amount available to the Indian tribe in a separate funding agreement. The ultimate goal of these amendments is to facilitate economic development, provide Indian people with an opportunity to make a good living, and give the tribes greater control over the management and development of their own trust resources. There are other energy-related issues addressed in this bill as well. There is an amendment to section 201 of the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses, where no preliminary permit has been issued, for hydroelectric projects. However, this provision does not affect any preliminary permit or original license issued before the bill's enactment date or any application for an original license where no preliminary permit has been issued that was complete before the date of enactment of the bill. The bill would also authorize a ``biomass demonstration project'' for biomass energy production from Indian forest lands, rangelands and other Federal lands in accordance with program requirements developed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture after consultation with Indian tribes. This amendment would promote the development of tribal biomass projects by providing them with more reliable and potentially long-term supplies of woody biomass materials. There are many other provisions of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2011, but the foregoing items are among the more important. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me as well as the other Senators who have agreed to join as cosponsors. In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving this act expeditiously.