John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if Washington is going to force new regulations on the job creators of this country, I think America needs to know the cost of those regulations. That is why I rise today to discuss an important amendment, an amendment I am offering to the underlying China currency bill. It is Barrasso amendment No. 671. This amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment--it is cosponsored by Senator Manchin and Senator Blunt--will force the U.S. Government to look before it leaps when it comes to issuing job-crushing regulations. Simply put, the administration would be required to do a comprehensive and transparent jobs-impact analysis--a jobs-impact analysis--before issuing any job-crushing regulations. Job creation in this country has almost come to a halt. The Labor Department reported that zero jobs were created in August. The economic recovery that was promised by the administration failed to materialize. Unemployment remains at 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in China is 4.1 percent. Our economy is stagnant. China's economy is growing. It has been this way since President Obama took office. The President blames the American people by saying the country has grown soft. In September, he stated in a TV interview in Florida: The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that has gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track. Yet, despite the repeated assurances of improvement, President Obama's own economic policies have failed. The only people who have gained from these policies live in countries overseas. We see it in China. These are people who are benefiting from American companies moving operations outside the United States. Why? Well, it is to escape Washington's redtape. The President's stimulus plan failed to produce the 3.5 million jobs the President had promised. His so-called green jobs initiative gave us more red ink but never came close to the 5 million new jobs he predicted. All the while, the Washington bureaucracy that he controls has continued to churn out extensive as well as expansive new regulations that amount to an assault on domestic private sector job creation. The facts are inescapable. Since President Obama took office, America has lost approximately 2.3 million jobs. We have been in an economic crisis, a crisis that extends to America's confidence in the President, confidence in this President to do anything that will change the current course. What the American people want is leadership, and they have rejected the President's insistence that the only way forward is through more spending and more Washington redtape on those in this country who create jobs. In September, the President addressed a joint session of Congress. He actually said he wanted to eliminate regulations, regulations he said put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time, he said, they can least afford it. Well, we heard this same message from the White House time and time again. The rhetoric coming out of this White House simply has not matched the reality. In fact, Washington continues to roll out redtape each and every day. The redtape makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs while making it easier to create jobs in foreign countries such as China. The President said his administration has identified over 500 reforms to our regulatory system, he said, that would save billions of dollars the next few years. Well, I appreciate that the White House may have identified wasteful regulations, but it will not help our economy unless the White House repeals those wasteful regulations. The President's jobs plan does nothing to fix the regulatory burdens faced by America's job creators. His jobs plan actually adds to the burden on job creators in this country. The President has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of redtape. He said he does not want to choose between jobs and safety. Well, in today's regulatory climate, the choice is a false one. Washington's wasteful regulations are not keeping Americans safe from dangerous jobs. The American people cannot find jobs because no one is safe from the regulations coming out of Washington. For every step our economy tries to take forward, Washington regulations continue to stand in the way. The expansion of the Federal bureaucracy is suffocating the private sector economy. Federal agency funding has increased 16 percent over the past 3 years, while our economy has only grown 5 percent over the same 3 years. The regulatory burden is literally growing three times faster than our own economy. This massive increase in Washington's power has only made the U.S. economy worse and China's better. Americans know regulating our economy makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. The combined cost of new regulations being proposed by the Obama administration in July and August alone was $17.7 billion. Much of this cost was borne by Americans working in red, white, and blue jobs. Those who try to justify these policies claim they will help us create green jobs at some unknown time in the future. Our economy, our job market, is not a seesaw. Pushing one part down does not make the other side pop up. This administration's out-of-control regulations scheme is dragging down large portions of our economy. Now the President has promised to stop this kind of overreach. President Obama issued an Executive order at the start of this year. Way back in the beginning of 2011 he said he wanted to do that, to slow down Washington's regulations. Let's see how effective the President has been with his Executive order. Well, it has failed. In the month the President issued his Executive order, way back in the beginning of 2011, all of those months ago, hundreds of new rules and regulations have been either enacted or proposed. For every day that goes by, America's job creators face at least one new Washington rule to follow. When the President announced his Executive order, he said he wanted to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. These are very laudable goals, but a new rule every day does nothing to promote predictability and is the very definition of uncertainty. The main source of uncertainty in the economy right now is Washington regulations. To make things worse, the people most victimized by this uncertainty are the very people the President claims he wants to help. The President said last year that when it comes to job creation, he wants to ``start where most new jobs do, with small businesses.'' Well, the sentiment is right, but, again, what has he done about it? According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, businesses with fewer than 20 employees, well, those businesses incur regulatory costs that are 42 percent higher than larger businesses which have up to 500 employees. These figures do not include the avalanche of new regulations coming down the road. Since January 1 of this year, over 50,000 pages of regulations have been added to the Federal Register. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said the President's new health care law alone will produce 30,000 pages of new health care regulations. At whom are many of those aimed? Well, it is these same small employers the President claims to want to help. The President said he will keep trying every new idea that works, and he will listen to every good proposal no matter which party, he said, comes up with it. Well, I have a pretty simple idea. If the President wants to know which proposals will work to create jobs, maybe he should require his regulatory agencies to tell him how their own actions will affect the job market. The amendment I am offering is going to do just that. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is based on a bill that I have introduced called the Employment Impact Act. This amendment will force every regulatory agency to prepare what is called a jobs impact statement--a jobs impact statement--for every new rule proposed. The impact statement must include a detailed assessment of the jobs that would be lost or even gained or sent overseas upon enactment of a rule coming out of Washington. Agencies would be required to consider whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. This job impact statement would also require an analysis of any alternative plans that might actually be better for our economy. The amendment requires regulatory agencies to examine and report on how new rules might interact with other proposals that are also coming down the road. The problem with Washington regulations is not only that they are too sweeping, but there are also too many. It makes no sense to look at any one individual rule or regulation in a vacuum and then enacting hundreds of them without identifying and understanding their cumulative impact and effect. The cumulative effect of those regulations is going to spell death by a thousand cuts for hard-working Americans who are trying to work, trying to support their families. In keeping with the principles of transparency that President Obama regularly proclaims is a priority for him, this bill, this amendment, will require every jobs impact statement prepared by a Federal agency to be made available to the public. The American people deserve to know--have a right to know--what their government is actually doing. Federal agencies in Washington need to learn to think, to think about the American people before they act. Requiring statements from these agencies on what their regulations will do is nothing new. For 40 years the Federal Government has required an analysis of how Federal regulations will impact America's environment. They have to file what are called environmental impact statements. What I am asking for is simply a jobs impact statement. Past generations of legislators rightly recognized the importance of America's land, air, and water. It is equally important that we recognize the importance of America's working families as well. America's greatest natural resource is the American people. We are talking about people who want to work, who are willing to work, who are looking for work, and yet cannot find a job. This amendment, the Barrasso amendment, will force Washington bureaucrats to realize Americans are much more interested in growing our Nation's economy than they are in growing China's economy. I urge a vote and adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have repeatedly since the health care bill was signed into law, to offer a doctor's second opinion about issues related to that health care law. A group of House and Senate Republican lawmakers, including Senator Thune of South Dakota, released a startling new report about the President's health care law. The report is entitled ``CLASS' Untold Story: Taxpayers, Employers, and States on the Hook for Flawed Entitlement Program.'' I commend this report to my colleagues. Many may remember that President Obama's health care law established a brandnew, Federal long-term care entitlement program. It is called the CLASS Program, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Program. This CLASS Program pays a stipend to individuals enrolled when they are unable to perform daily living activities--dressing, bathing, eating. To qualify for the benefits, an individual would have to pay a monthly premium for 5 years--pay a monthly premium for 5 years--before the Federal Government starts to pay out any of the benefits. The health care law mandates that the CLASS Program collect individual premiums for those 5 years before the program actually even starts to pay out benefits. It sounds pretty good but not so fast. When it comes to the health care law, the American people have come to realize that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The CLASS Program was supposed to start January 1, 2011--10 months ago. But the Obama administration's officials decided to delay the program because they know it does not work. It is now known that the CLASS Program was an intentionally designed budget gimmick--that is correct: an intentionally designed budget gimmick. During Senate floor debate of the President's health care bill, I, along with many other Members of this side of the aisle, warned repeatedly--repeatedly--that the CLASS Program is a financial disaster waiting to happen. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the CLASS Program would reduce the deficit by $70 billion over a 10-year period. These savings are mythical, and they come from the premium dollars CLASS collects those first 5 years, before it pays out a single penny. During those first 5 years, the program is not required to pay out any benefits to any individuals. Over its first 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office says this CLASS Program will collect $83 billion in premiums and only pay out $13 billion in benefits. But instead of holding on to the $70 billion in excess premiums collected to pay for future expenses we know are coming, Members of the Senate--Members on the other side of the aisle--used those same funds to pay for President Obama's health care law. To add insult to injury, Washington Democrats then tried to claim that the $70 billion could also be used to pay down the deficit. The American people immediately saw this claim was irresponsible. Even the Senate Budget Committee chairman, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota, admitted the CLASS Program was ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order--something Bernie Madoff would be proud of.'' Yet the President and Washington Democrats pushed to include this CLASS Program in the health care law. This new report provides undeniable evidence that administration officials knew the CLASS Program's design and payment structure were fiscally unsustainable. The Obama administration knew it. Yet they repeatedly ignored the explicit and persistent warnings. One might ask: Why is that? The only logical explanation is, administration officials chose to hide the CLASS Program's true cost from congressional lawmakers and the American people--all to advance President Obama's ideological health care agenda. This push to advance an agenda, rather than reasonable patient- centered health care reforms, served only to create yet another unsustainable entitlement program, an entitlement program this country simply cannot afford. The Obama administration's own Chief Actuary, a man named Richard Foster, repeatedly tried to tell administration officials that the CLASS Program was not fiscally sound. Internal e- mails from Mr. Foster first warned administration officials in May of 2009--well before the health care law was enacted. According to that report, Mr. Foster's e-mail says: The program is intended to be ``actuarially sound'', but at first glance this goal may be impossible. Due to the limited scope of the insurance coverage, the voluntary CLASS plan would probably not attract many participants other than individuals who already meet the criteria to qualify as beneficiaries. He went on to say: While the 5-year ``vesting period'' would allow the fund to accumulate a modest level of assets, all such assets could be used just to meet benefit payments due in the first few months of the 6th year. Then, a key sentence: The resulting substantial premium increases required to prevent fund exhaustion would likely reduce the number of participants, and a classic ``assessment spiral'' or ``insurance death spiral'' would ensue. What does this mean in plain English? It means the CLASS premiums will be too expensive to persuade young, healthy people to participate. It means the CLASS plan's long-term care payout is very enticing to people who know they are going to need the care; healthy people do not participate, sicker people do participate. Individuals in the health care system call this phenomenon adverse selection. When adverse selection occurs, the American taxpayer is at very serious risk of being forced to bail out the program when it fails. The report goes on to show that Mr. Foster repeated his concerns during the summer of 2009. He writes to another administration official: I'm sorry to report that I remain very doubtful that this proposal is sustainable at the specified premium and benefit amounts. He says: Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. Let me remind everyone that the Chief Actuary is a nonpartisan, high- ranking official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Chief Actuary's estimates are critical to understand the health care law's true fiscal impact and long-term viability. Mr. Foster certainly does not have an ax to grind. He simply offered his analysis based on the data, and the Obama administration ignored it. Not only did Obama administration officials ignore Mr. Foster, they stopped requesting his input. But Mr. Foster was not alone. In the fall of 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation also raised the red flag. According to the report, one employee wrote in an e-mail on October 22: Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. . . . I can't imagine that CLASS would not have high levels of adverse selection given the significantly higher premiums compared to similar policies in the private market. Just a week after Senator Thune released this stunning new report on the floor of the Senate, media outlets indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services has closed its CLASS Program. Mr. Bob Yee, the CLASS Chief Actuary, announced the closure in an e-mail. He went on to say he would leave his position as the CLASS office Actuary effective immediately. News reports indicated the CLASS office's employees have either been reassigned or asked to leave. Mysteriously, however, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement denying the office was officially closing. In fact, the statement failed to say if and when the CLASS Program would even start. The Obama administration has had 18 months to figure out how to implement this CLASS Program. Recent developments show they are not even close to resolving questions about the program's solvency. The American people deserve more. The American people deserve the truth. The evidence is indisputable. Administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services knew the CLASS Program was unsustainable, and they knew it before President Obama signed the health care bill into law. They knew it. Yet this Senate and the House of Representatives and the administration failed in their duty to be honest with the American people and to tell them the truth. Were administration officials deliberately hiding CLASS's true cost for political gain? This is certainly not the first time during the last several weeks that we have seen troubling reports exposing the administration's tendency to ignore financial warnings. They ignore the warnings so they can advance politically important projects to them-- projects that turn into expensive failures, with the American taxpayers being stuck with the bill. I see this report, this incredible study, as yet one more piece of evidence that the President's health care law must be repealed. It must be repealed and replaced with reasonable, commonsense, and financially sound alternatives: patient-centered reforms that allow individuals to get the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor one of our former colleagues and a dear friend. U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop died yesterday, September 14, 2011, at his Wyoming home overlooking the majestic Big Horn Mountains. Senator Wallop will be remembered as a unique and enduring figure in the history of Wyoming and in the history of the United States. Malcolm was a stalwart defender of freedom and democracy around the world and a determined advocate for limited government and opportunity for every person. Like that iconic range in northern Wyoming that he loved, Malcolm stood very tall--as a citizen, as a State and Federal legislator, and as a loyal guardian for Wyoming people and our way of life. I want to send my deepest condolences to Malcolm's family back in Wyoming and around the country: to Isabel, his wife; to his beloved children, Malcolm, Matthew, Amy, and Paul; to his dear sisters, Jeannie and Carolyn. I also want to offer my condolences to all of those folks who worked for Senator Wallop during his years of extraordinary public service. I have met most and have known many over the years. My wife Bobbi served on his very first staff in Washington, and last night she shared with me again what we have all come to know: Malcolm was a kind, caring, and extraordinary gentleman. Malcolm's staff served him ably and honorably. I know there are also some in this body today who served alongside Malcolm Wallop. You no doubt remember him well. It was just 4 years ago that Senator Wallop returned here to this Chamber and attended my own swearing-in on June 25, 2007. On that day, as is tradition, Senator Wallop walked with me up to the President's desk to take the oath. He stood with me during the ceremony and offered private words of encouragement and advice. I was honored that day to have him there next to me, and it saddens me greatly to join Senator Enzi to announce his death. Malcolm Wallop was someone I followed throughout his career. I admired him greatly. He was a man whom many of us looked up to, as he grew into one of the most influential legislators of his time. ``Hello, my friend''--that was his classic western rancher's drawl, and it was what you heard if Malcolm Wallop was on the other end of the phone line or came through the door. Malcolm was a real-life version of anyone's image of a western gentleman. Today, I remember him as a brilliant servant-leader. He possessed a special western wisdom, which often found those around him racing just to catch up. He found great contentment in all of the many facets of his life. Even during recent years, when numerous medical challenges conquered his physical body, his spirit and his intellect were never diminished. Public service was his heritage and his calling. His grandfather, Oliver Henry ``Noll'' Wallop, founded the Canyon Ranch in the Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming in 1888. That is before Wyoming even became a State. Noll had the distinction of serving first in the Wyoming State Legislature and then, later in life, in the House of Lords in Great Britain. Noll was the youngest son of Lord Isaac Newton Wallop, the fifth Earl of Portsmouth. When Noll's older brothers died, he reluctantly returned to England to fulfill the family duty. However, his own son Oliver, who was Malcolm's father, had been grown up and he remained in Wyoming. Malcolm was born in 1933, and Big Horn was always his home. His children and his grandchildren are the fourth and fifth generations of his family to make their lives in the beautiful Big Horn Mountain area of north central Wyoming. They ranch, they own businesses, they teach, they raise their children, they serve their community--all those things we do to make this Nation strong. Malcolm was a pilot. He served as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He was a cattle rancher elected to the Wyoming State Legislature, serving both in the house as well as in the senate from 1969 through 1976. In 1974, Wallop ran unsuccessfully for Governor of Wyoming. But it was during that summer campaign that Malcolm began to distinguish himself as a principled and energetic future force in Republican politics. He did not shy from the tough issues; instead, he seemed to gather strength from the challenges. Only 2 years later, he unseated incumbent U.S. Senator Gale McGee and became Wyoming's 19th Senator, serving from 1977 to 1995. When Malcolm was elected to this body in 1976, it was really something. You heard about the commercials from Senator Enzi. Well, a group of young people had gathered around to support his very unlikely bid to serve Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. The national press called it the Children's Crusade. Many of those young people came to Washington with him, and my wife Bobbi Brown was among those, who began her own public service career as part of his first-term staff. It is an indication of the affection and the loyalty felt by those who were part of his team that more than 60 people gathered with Malcolm in Wyoming in 2006 for a 30-year reunion. He served three terms in the Senate, and his work here was very broad in scope. His presence was lasting, and it touched on the mercurial issues of the late 1970s and 1980s, from energy policy to the environment, from national security to tax reform. One of our own colleagues, Senator Carl Levin, said of Malcolm: While we disagreed, again, probably as often as we agreed, that did not stand in the way of my admiration for the quality, the characteristic that he had of letting you know precisely where he stood and why. He went on to say: And his patriotism is second to none in this body. Malcolm Wallop was the first elected official to propose a space- based missile system, which eventually became part of our Strategic Defense Initiative. He was highly regarded for his knowledge and understanding of defense issues and surely helped bring the Berlin Wall down. Later in his Senate service, he was a member of the Helsinki Commission, and he traveled in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union as an arms control negotiator. Speaking of their strategic partnership, President Reagan said: ``Leadership, hard work, experience, loyalty to Wyoming--that's what Malcolm Wallop is all about.'' Malcolm was fiercely protective of States rights, property rights, the rights to privacy, and he was a champion of the rights of the individual. He was remembered for the Wallop amendment to the Surface Mining Control Act, a property rights issue which forced the Federal Government to compensate property owners whose ability to mine was undercut by regulation. He worked successfully to protect State interest in the Clean Water Act. He brought significant wilderness to Wyoming through the 1984 Wilderness Act. He was a key force behind the passage of the far-reaching 1982 Energy Policy Act. Senator Wallop, on more than one occasion, commented that he ``was not burdened with a law degree.'' Yet he was selected in his very first term to serve on the Judiciary Committee, the first nonlawyer ever so chosen. Perhaps his greatest contribution was his landmark legislation to address the heartbreaking issue of parental kidnapping. He was one of a long and distinguished line of Wyoming Senators who served with distinction on the Senate Finance Committee. His 1981 bill to cut inheritance and gift taxes is remembered as one of the most substantive changes to tax policy that decade. He appreciated opportunities which allowed for private/public sector partnerships. Early in his Senate career, there was talk of establishing a national service requirement for young people. But Malcolm felt that if we were going to require young people to serve the Nation, the Nation should recognize them for the service so many were already providing through their daily lives. This resulted in his leadership to establish the Congressional Award. He joined with colleagues in both Houses of Congress in a bipartisan effort and a unique program available to all interested young people in the country was created. It is a program of Congress which operates with private sector funds. It is an earned honor and is the highest honor which we bestow on our Nation's young people. The many young people in my State who participate in the Close Up program do so because Malcolm thought it was an important opportunity for his young constituents. At the time, Close Up only offered their program in the cities. Malcolm worked to convince the Close Up Foundation that a statewide program would work. I believe Close Up today counts their Wyoming program as one of its most successful. Malcolm Wallop reached across Capitol Hill. He reached across party lines in the creation of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, commonly known as the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund, which has resulted in billions of dollars generated by users for support of fisheries and wetlands around the country. But it was not all serious. He was an enthusiastic supporter of his staff's efforts to deal with their homesickness in July. In July of 1977, he held the first Frontier East, an east coast celebration of Cheyenne's Frontier Days, which is known simply as COWPIE. COWPIE stands for the Committee of Wyoming People in the East. It is still today one of the Washington area's most celebrated summer events. My wife Bobbi reminds me how absolutely joyful Malcolm was each year on his birthday. His birthday was February 27. As Bobbi reminds me, that is when his staff organized the Wally Awards, making great fun of themselves and their boss. I am told the best was the impersonation of him by his chief of staff, Bill Hill. That is the same chief of staff who then went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court. Malcolm remained forever steadfast against the growth and the power of centralized government. He warned: ``As we remain the sheep, the government happily remains our shepherd.'' He talked often as a Senator of our shrinking freedom and the battle to lay claim to our fragile liberty. That was Malcolm Wallop. When he announced his retirement in 1993, after 18 years in the Senate, Senator Wallop told the Casper Star Tribune simply: ``I don't think the only place to fight for freedom is in the halls of Congress.'' His life after the Senate was filled with his continuing work on issues focusing on constitutionally limited government, a strong national defense, and the rights of the individual. To address these issues, he founded the Frontiers of Freedom. He spoke with power and eloquence about the issues which he found to be the core of our great country. In a 2003 interview with Peter Evans, he said: You'll find in the American people an enormous sense of pride and self assurance that only comes from people living free. It's unbelievably invigorating, and very reassuring, to know the great experiment is in the hands of people who don't even know it, and isn't in the hands of the people who think they hold it. Malcolm Wallop was so many things. But what Malcolm Wallop was not was sentimental. The new phase of his life was the full phase of his life. He did not dwell on past things. His energy was always spent looking forward. I wish to conclude by repeating Senator Wallop's own words. Speaking in 2005 before the Ronald Reagan Gala sponsored by the Frontiers of Freedom, Senator Wallop spoke about his own beliefs. Government was not meant to possess us, rule us, encompass us, judge for us, substitute for us. It was meant to serve us. We were founded as a noble self-governing tribe of free people respecting each other as Americans under God--not under Washington. Americans know this even if their government does not. The biggest difference between the principle of government in America, and anywhere else is that here the rulers must stick to clearly defined tasks, while ordinary people may do whatever they wish. We must make up our minds to put this principle into practice again, lest we lose the spirit that made us the envy of the world. Most important, the American model is based on a certain kind of people--defined not by race but by virtue and by the willingness to take responsibility for our own lives. People fit to be Americans ask for blessings only from God. Because being Americans is not a matter of birth, we must practice it every day--lest we become something else. The size of our continent, its fabulous wealth, its indescribable beauty, the ships, tanks and airplanes in our arsenal, are no treasure compared to the moral character of the American people. I pray to God that he will graciously help us preserve and protect that splendid moral base. To Isabel and his beloved children, Malcolm, Matthew, Amy, and Paul, to his dear sisters, Jeannie and Carolyn, we thank you for letting him share so much of his life with us all. There is no question our world is better for the time he spent addressing the great issues of the day and we are grateful. We can cherish our memories and stories of Malcolm knowing he would cast a wry glance and wonder why we were not spending our thoughts and our energy on a challenge that needed our attention. It is what he would expect of all of us. It is the example he left for us. It is his legacy. So, today, godspeed, Malcolm. The Senate, Wyoming, the United States of America, has lost one of its most steadfast defenders. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wyoming because today Wyoming and America lost an extraordinary man. Senator Malcolm Wallop was a dedicated public servant and great legislator. He leaves a proud legacy of a Wyoming Senator who solved problems and initiated great solutions. He set a high bar for public service, and all of Wyoming is grateful. Whether he was serving in the Army, the Wyoming legislature, or in the U.S. Senate, Malcolm Wallop always stood for freedom. For decades he worked to strengthen America's national security and to protect States rights. His common sense and his commitment helped break down Washington's barriers to American energy development. Our Nation continues to benefit from his leadership. There will be much more to say about Malcolm in these coming days and in the weeks ahead as we seek to honor his legacy. I will miss Malcolm's friendship and his support. My wife Bobbi and I send our very heartfelt condolences to his family and to his friends throughout this great country. We will continue to keep the entire Wallop family in our thoughts and in our prayers. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I do almost on a weekly basis, to talk about the health care law and, I do that as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, taking care of Wyoming families. I come to the floor because I have great concerns about this health care law. We know--history proves--that landmark pieces of legislation written in Congress often contain drafting errors at one stage or another during the bill's development. This is one of the main reasons most landmark bills are written and negotiated in an open and transparent manner. Writing and negotiating bills in this way helps Members of Congress minimize mistakes. It helps uncover any unintentional consequences. It helps fix problems. This is done through rigorous committee and floor debate, as well as House-Senate conference committees, as the bills go through the process. Most importantly, doing something in an open and transparent manner gives the American people, the folks at home, an opportunity to read a bill, to study it, to think about it, to discuss it during townhall meetings with their Members, and ask questions and weigh in. Well, unfortunately, we all know the largest health care law ever enacted did not undergo an open, transparent, or bipartisan process. President Obama promised the American people they could watch the discussions and the writing process--he said--on C-SPAN. Well, instead, the President and Democrat leaders in both the House and the Senate sealed themselves behind closed doors. Their strategy? Pass sweeping health care legislation based on stealth and speed. Use sound bites to sell America about expanding coverage, about cutting costs, about improving quality, and then offer very few details explaining exactly how the bill would impact individual Americans, nor what it would cost the country. Well, while this entire strategy was being played out, the President and Washington Democrats were writing the legislation behind closed doors. Why? Well, to limit the time the bills could be read and reviewed by the American public. Some in Washington thought rushing a health care bill into law before America could read it was the perfect way to avoid public debate and public questioning. Many of us recall when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi infamously said: First, you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Well, the President passed his health care law, and the American people continue, on a daily basis, to find out what is in it. They do not like it, and it is easy to understand why. As the American people had a chance to read the details, they started asking more questions. The numbers simply were not adding up. Health care costs, they were seeing, were going up, even though the President promised that health care costs would go down. There were costly mandates on small employers, and that was going to discourage hiring. Nancy Pelosi said they would hire 400,000 people immediately. They have not been hired. She said 4 million new workers would be hired ultimately. We have not seen it yet. Mandates we have seen come out of the health care law do nothing to spur economic growth and help the 9.1 percent of individuals nationwide--14 million Americans--who are currently unemployed and are looking for work. Then there are even more government orders forcing individuals to buy one-size-fits-all, government-approved insurance or face a fine. The American people have had 17 months to find out what is in the President's health care law. One news report after another has been uncovering a laundry list of so-called glitches in the health care law. Well, former Speaker Pelosi wanted the American people to find out what was in the law, and 17 months later the American people are finding out that the President and Washington Democrats did not even write it correctly. On Wednesday, September 7, of this year, Investor's Business Daily printed an article titled, ``Oops! No ObamaCare Tax Credit Via Federal Exchanges?'' The article explains that the way ObamaCare was written, individuals who qualify for a taxpayer-funded subsidy to buy government-approved health insurance in the new State exchanges may not get it. Section 1311 of the health care law requires the States to set up a State-run ``exchange.'' This State-based exchange is a place where individuals can use their government subsidy to buy health insurance. Now, if a State declines to set up their own exchange, then section 1321 mandates that the Federal Government set it up and run it for them. Here is the catch: The health care law, as written, as signed by the President, explicitly says the taxpayer-funded subsidies can only go to people who are enrolled in exchanges set up by the State. Nowhere does the health care law mention that the subsidy can be given to people enrolled in the Federal exchange. So the American people are now finding out that their family might actually qualify for government help to buy health insurance, but they are not going to receive the help. Instead, individuals enrolled in federally run exchanges could be forced to buy health insurance that, absolutely, they cannot afford. Not only might this law cause individuals to spend money they do not have, the law may also offer taxpayer-funded subsidies to people who do not actually need it. Let me repeat that. The law may actually offer taxpayer-funded subsidies to people who do not actually need it. At a time when our country can hardly afford to spend money we do not have, Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, exposed yet another glitch in the President's health care law. The law allows approximately 3 million middle-class early retirees to qualify for Medicaid. Well, Medicaid is a safety net program designed to help low-income Americans. Here is how this one works: The health care law defines how the Federal Government will set an individual's Medicaid eligibility. The calculations are all based on income. Here is the glitch: The health care law excludes a large part of an individual's Social Security income from that calculation. Well, today, Federal low-income assistance programs are required to count Social Security benefits as part of an individual's income. Thanks to the health care law, early retirees earning up to $58,840 a year could now be eligible for Medicaid. Here is what Mr. Foster said in an Associated Press article. He said: I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense. This is the Chief Actuary of Medicare. ``I don't generally comment,'' he says, ``on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense.'' Well, I agree. That is why I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Mike Enzi closing this loophole. Senator Enzi's bill, S. 1376, changes the health care law subsidy eligibility calculation to include all nontaxable Social Security income. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate if we enacted Senator Enzi's bill, we will save the Federal Government and the American people about $13 billion. The Senate should immediately take up S. 1376 and pass it. This is $13 billion we can save right now, today. Let's show the American people that when we see our country spending money that it shouldn't, we will take a stand, collectively as a Senate, and stop it. These examples--these two examples--inevitably beg the question: What next? Clearly, the self-described ``most transparent Administration in history'' has a lot of explaining to do. I do not believe my friends on the other side of the aisle, who wrote this very flawed health care law--and they did it behind closed doors--I do not think they knew what they were doing when they wrote these provisions. How do I know that? Well, if they understood how devastating their policies would be, I think they might have had second thoughts. How many more disruptive, ticking time bombs are there lurking in this law and in the regulations that still have not been written about this health care law that was signed a year and a half ago? We do not know. We do not know because many of the provisions do not even go into effect until the year 2014 or later. As a physician who has practiced medicine a long time, cared for patients all around the State of Wyoming, been active in the Wyoming health fairs, bringing low-cost health screenings to people all around the Cowboy State, I intend to fight each and every day in this Senate to make sure the American people will not have to find out what kind of additional ticking time bombs there are in the health care law. That is because I am more committed than ever to repeal the health care law and replace it with patient-centered care, replace it with health care reforms that help American families get the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week the President addressed a joint session of Congress. He said he wanted to eliminate regulations-- regulations, he said, that put ``unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it.'' We have heard this same message from the White House time and time again. The rhetoric coming out of this White House simply has not matched the reality. In fact, Washington continues to roll out redtape each day, and the redtape makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs in this country. The President also said that his administration has identified over 500 reforms to our regulatory system that would save ``billions of dollars over the next few years.'' I appreciate that the White House has identified wasteful regulations, but it will not really help our economy unless the White House repeals them. Since January, this White House has only repealed one single regulation, and it has to do, actually, with spilt milk. The President's new plan does nothing to fix the regulatory burdens faced by our job creators. It actually adds to the burdens of the job creators of this country. The President has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of redtape. He said he doesn't want to ``choose between jobs and safety.'' In today's regulatory climate, that choice is a false choice. Washington's wasteful regulations are not keeping Americans safe from dangerous jobs. The American people cannot find jobs because no one is safe from the regulations coming out of Washington. For every step our economy tries to take forward, Washington's regulations continue to stand in the way. Federal agencies' funding has increased 16 percent over the past 3 years while our economy has only grown 5 percent over these same 3 years. Washington's regulatory burden is literally growing three times faster than our own economy. This massive increase in Washington's power has only made the economy worse. Americans know that regulating our economy makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. The combined cost of the new regulations being imposed by this administration just last month was over $9 billion. Much of this cost has been borne by America's energy producers and has cost American workers thousands of red, white, and blue jobs. Those who try to justify these policies claim they will help us create green jobs at some unknown time in the future. Our economy, our job market, is not a seesaw. Pushing one part down doesn't make the other side pop up. This administration's out-of-control regulation is persistently dragging down large portions of our economy. The President has promised to stop this kind of overreach. Remember, he issued an Executive order at the start of this year that was supposed to slow down Washington's regulation. So what has this administration done about it? In the 7 months since the President issued his Executive order, hundreds of new rules have been either enacted or proposed. For every day that goes by, our job creators face at least one new Washington rule to follow. When the President announced his Executive order, he said he wanted to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. These are laudable goals, but a new rule every day does nothing to promote predictability and is the very definition of uncertainty. The President talked about uncertainty just recently. The main source of uncertainty in the economy right now is Washington's regulations. Yet there was not a single sentence about regulations in the President's address just this week. To make things worse, the people most victimized by this uncertainty are the very people the President claims he wants to help. The President said last year that when it comes to job creation, he wants to, as he said, ``start where most new jobs do--with small businesses.'' The sentiment is right, but, again, what has he done about it? According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs that are 42 percent higher than larger businesses with up to 500 employees, and that is not counting the avalanche of new regulations that will come down the road. This year, over 50,000 pages of regulations have been added to the Federal Register already, and the chamber of commerce has said that the President's new health care law alone will produce ``30,000 pages of new health care regulations, many aimed at small employers.'' The President has said he will keep trying every new idea that works and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. I have a pretty simple idea. If the President wants to know which proposals will work to create jobs, maybe he should require his regulatory agencies to tell him how their own actions will affect the job market. Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska and I have a bill that will do just that. It is called the Employment Impact Act, S. 1219. This bill will force Washington to look before it leaps when it comes to regulation that could hurt America's jobs. Under our bill, every regulatory agency would be required to prepare what is called a jobs impact statement, and this jobs impact statement would need to be prepared with every new rule that is proposed. The statement would include a detailed assessment of the jobs that would be lost or gained or sent overseas by any given rule coming out of Washington. It would consider whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. This jobs impact statement would also include an analysis of any alternative plans that might be better for the economy. Most importantly, it would require regulatory agencies to look at how new rules might interact with other proposals coming down the road. The problem with our regulations is not only that they are too sweeping, it is also that there are too many of them, so it makes no sense to look at an individual rule in a vacuum and enacting hundreds of them without knowing their cumulative effect. The effect of all of these together could spell death by a thousand cuts for hard-working Americans who are trying to work and support their families. Also in keeping with the principles of transparency, this bill would require every jobs impact statement prepared by a Federal agency to be made available to the public. The American people deserve to know what their government is actually doing, and Federal agencies in Washington need to learn to think before they act. Requiring statements from these agencies on what their regulations will do is nothing new. For 40 years, the Federal Government has always required its bureaucrats to ask the question of whether their actions will impact America's environment. They have to file environmental impact statements. What I am asking for here is a jobs impact statement. Past generations of legislators rightly recognized the importance of America's land, air, and water, but it is important that we recognize the importance of America's working families as well. America's greatest natural resource is the American people. We are talking about people who want to work, are willing to work, are looking for work, and yet cannot find a job. The Employment Impact Act will force Washington bureaucrats to realize Americans are much more interested in growing our Nation's economy than they are in growing our government. I am going to continue to fight to see that the Employment Impact Act is passed and signed into law to help get Americans working again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thoughts and my concerns about an issue of the utmost importance; that is, the Israel-Palestinian peace process. Tomorrow, September 13, 2011, the General Assembly of the United Nations will commence with its 66th session in New York. Every year, member nations come together to debate and discuss the important issues facing the world at the United Nations General Assembly. While there will be a variety of issues on the agenda this year, I am extremely concerned about one issue specifically. Over the last several months, Palestinian Authority President Abbas has repeatedly voiced his intention to formally request statehood recognition and full membership in the United Nations. In July, the Arab League endorsed this irresponsible ploy. Regrettably, President Abbas intends to make the formal request during this session of the United Nations General Assembly. I oppose the decision of the Palestinian Authority to seek a declaration of statehood by the United Nations. The unilateral action of the Palestinian Authority is intended to circumvent the peace process. It is not a good-faith effort to achieve peace in the Middle East but, to me, rather it is a political maneuver. The United Nations should not be interfering or intervening in this complex process and should refrain from passing unilateral declarations on issues that are part of ongoing direct negotiations by the parties. The decision about borders and statehood should be achieved through a final agreement, an agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians. The United Nations should refrain from dictating and imposing a final decision on statehood for a territory of one of its own current member nations. To me, this will only make matters worse. It will make this situation worse because the consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is weakened and greatly diminished by these types of tactics. The best path to peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties, not through a manipulation at the United Nations. The United States continues to support a two- state solution as a means to ending the conflict. It is based on the belief that it is the only way to achieve a true and lasting peace between these two parties. Instead of embarking on the time-consuming campaign to gain support in the United Nations General Assembly, the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. The request for recognition by the United Nations is part of a terrible emerging trend from the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority continues to engage in troubling behavior that is contrary to peace. On May 4, the Palestinian Authority reached an agreement with the terrorist group, Hamas, to create a unity government. It is outrageous that the Palestinian Authority would be willing to unite with a known terrorist group that is infamously recognized for its destructive acts of violence. Since 1997 Hamas has been designated by the U.S. Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization. Hamas terrorists are responsible for the murders of American citizens. It is also important to note that the agreement between Hamas and the Palestine Authority does not require Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, to accept the previous Israel-Palestinian agreements, or to renounce terrorism. Hamas continues to be fundamentally opposed to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It is apparent there is no path to a peaceful resolution when part of the Palestinian unity government is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made this point very clear when he addressed the joint session of Congress on May 24 of this year. He stated, ``Peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.'' Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable for U.S. assistance to go the Palestinian Authority when it includes Hamas. The Palestinian Authority received approximately $500 million in U.S. foreign assistance in fiscal year 2010. Hard-earned U.S. taxpayer funds must not be funneled into the pockets of terrorists. History shows this is not the first attempt by the Palestinians to use the United Nations to circumvent peace negotiations and declare statehood. The Palestinians sought to change their status at the United Nations through the World Health Organization. At that time, Secretary of State James Baker publicly warned that he would recommend that the United States stop funding any international organization that changed the Palestinian status as an observer organization. Americans are keenly aware that a significant portion of the United Nations' budget is paid by the United States. As the biggest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States contributed almost $7.7 billion in fiscal year 2010 to the United Nations system. The United States should not be providing funding for an international institution that circumvents an established peace process and that threatens the security of our allies. The United States and Israel share a long and deep alliance. Israel is a friend and ally and a strategic partner to the United States. Both Israel and the United States understand the values of life, liberty, opportunity, security, and freedom. Throughout Israel's history, the country has worked to build a democratic nation in the face of severe obstacles. Israel is a shining example of democracy in the Middle East. As Israel faces real danger from its neighbors, the people of Israel continue to show great strength and perseverance as they seek peace. On May 22, President Obama explained that no vote at the United Nations would create an independent Palestinian State. On May 25, the President expressed his concern about the efforts of the Palestinian Authority to seek statehood at the United Nations and referred to it as a ``mistake.'' The Department of State continues to reiterate that Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to work out the differences between themselves in direct negotiations. The United States has been very clear that we will use veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block any attempt by the Palestinians for state recognition or United Nations membership. The Obama administration must use all of its resources to block similar actions in the General Assembly and other United Nations organizations. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton must press the Palestinian Authority to abandon its erroneous decision and return to the negotiating table with Israel. It is also imperative that other international leaders understand the implications of these efforts and join the United States in opposing them. Nations must stand together to decry the attempt to circumvent direct peace process negotiations. The Palestinian Authority must also understand that its actions will have serious implications to the U.S.-Palestinian relations and U.S. assistance. The recent actions of the Palestinian Authority indicate to this Senator that the United States has no choice but to suspend funding assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Today, I call on Congress to terminate funding assistance to the Palestinian Authority. I believe Congress must also evaluate and significantly cut funding to the United Nations if any change to the status of the Palestinian Authority is approved by the General Assembly. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, U.S. job creation in this country, as you know, has come to a halt. The Labor Department reported last Friday that zero jobs were created in August. The economic recovery that was hoped for failed to materialize, and unemployment remains at 9.1 percent. Hope is not enough. Our economy is stagnant. The President's latest pivot to jobs is anchored on blaming the previous administration, which is now nearly 3 years past. Yet, despite repeated assurances of improvement, President Obama's own economic policies have failed. The President's stimulus plan failed to produce the 3.5 million jobs he promised. His ``green jobs'' initiative gave us more red ink but never came close to the 5 million new jobs he predicted it would. All the while the Federal bureaucracy he controls churns out expansive and expensive new regulations that amount to an assault on private sector job creation. The facts are inescapable. Since President Obama took office, America has lost approximately 2.3 million jobs. We are in an economic crisis-- a crisis that extends to America's confidence in the President to do anything that will change the current course. What the American people want is a plan, a plan that will yield results. They want leadership, and they have rejected the President's insistence that the only way forward is through more spending. Today, western Members of the Senate and House are calling on the President to accept a new way--a progrowth plan to create jobs in the West that will lead to broader economic recovery all across the country. The western caucus Jobs Frontier report was produced by Members of the Senate and congressional western caucuses. It contains legislative proposals already introduced in both Houses of Congress, and these are proposals that create jobs now. The proposals we support speak largely to the economic challenges faced by Western States. They are also aimed at ruinous regulations and reliance on foreign energy and lawsuit abuse that continues to stifle our entire economy. These bills are ready to pass. They are ready to create jobs today. Any serious job creation proposal has to start with serious steps to increase affordable American energy. For decades, westerners have worked in high-paying energy jobs, and these jobs have good benefits. Since taking office, the Obama administration has consistently pushed extreme policies and heavy-handed regulations that make it harder to develop American energy. Very simply: Fewer energy projects mean fewer American jobs. Members of the Senate and House western caucuses have proposed a wide range of proposals to increase the number of red, white, and blue jobs all across the country. Encouraging the development of all-of-the-above energy resources will create thousands of jobs in the West and make our country less dependent on foreign energy. This administration has consistently shut down offshore energy exploration. It has arbitrarily canceled existing leases, and it continues to try to impose additional hurdles to onshore production, such as redundant environmental reviews, burdensome permitting review requirements, and delays in processing of applications. Our bills--the ones in this report--will streamline the permitting process and break down the barriers imposed by President Obama. This will make it cheaper and easier--cheaper and easier--for the private sector to create jobs. Westerners recognize we cannot pick and choose which forms of energy to support. When it comes to energy, we need it all, and we need it now. That is why we need a bill that will let energy producers tap existing resources of American oil and natural gas. Our plan has a bill that will do that. It is called the Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act. It has been introduced by both Representative Rob Bishop of Utah and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. This bill would force the Department of the Interior to stop blocking offshore energy exploration. That department's stall tactics have gone so far that even President Bill Clinton has called them ridiculous. The Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act would force the Obama administration to quit stalling. The barrage of new regulations coming out of Washington continues to be a big wet blanket--a big wet blanket--thrown over the job creators in our country. In July of 2011, this administration issued 229 rules, and it finalized 379 additional rules that are going to cost our job creators over $9.5 billion. That is in July alone. Our plan includes a bill I have introduced, called the Employment Impact Act. This bill forces Washington regulators to look before they leap when it comes to regulations that could hurt American jobs. Under the bill I have introduced, every regulatory agency would be required to prepare a jobs impact statement. They would have to do it with every new rule they propose. That statement would include a detailed assessment of the jobs that would be lost or gained or sent overseas by any given rule. It would consider whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. The administration has also attempted to drastically increase wilderness areas, to expand Washington's jurisdiction on private waters, and to misuse the Endangered Species Act. Western lawmakers are proposing to reassert congressional authority to ensure a proper balance between job creation and conservation. Our bills in this report will increase transparency and stop any administration from issuing regulations without considering the local economic impact. Throughout our Nation's history, American farmers and ranchers have provided an affordable, abundant, and safe domestic supply of food and energy. In recent years, America's agricultural and forestry industries have been increasingly threatened by the surge of regulations coming from Washington--especially those from the Environmental Protection Agency. Our plan is going to push back. We will strengthen these industries and their ability to meet the world's growing food and energy needs. Westerners also recognize the mining sector is vital to our economic recovery. We know manufacturing jobs cannot be created without the raw materials needed to produce goods. Since the Obama administration will not break down barriers to American minerals, our Nation is growing increasingly dependent on foreign minerals--countries such as China and Russia. This inaction is unacceptable and it is inexcusable. Our plan includes Senator Murkowski's bill, the Critical Minerals Policy Act, which will ensure long-term viability of American mineral production. Her bill requires the U.S. Geological Survey to establish a list of minerals critical to the U.S. economy and then provide a comprehensive set of policies to address each economic sector that relies upon those critical minerals. It also creates a high-level interagency working group to optimize the efficiency of permitting in order to facilitate increased exploration and production of domestic critical minerals. These are just some of the ideas included in our jobs frontier plan. As it says: ``Breaking Down Washington's Barriers to America's Red, White and Blue Jobs.'' We eliminate back-door cap-and-tax regulations. Finally, we will take on excessive lawsuits against Federal agencies that have increased dramatically and destroyed jobs in the West. Every single one of the bills in the Republican jobs plan has been written and introduced in one or both Houses of Congress. This is a plan that can be implemented now. This is a plan that will work to create jobs. This is a plan that will reduce the cost of energy and restart the economy. There is a lot that needs to be done to fix our ailing economy. These are some ideas--western ideas--that come from the lawmakers that know best how our rural communities are suffering and how we can get folks back to work. Many of these proposals come from the States. They have the support of our western Governors and legislators. These are ideas not born in Washington. Recent jobless numbers confirm the current approach from Washington has failed. If the President is serious about incorporating the ideas of every American in every part of the country, then he needs to look beyond Washington. I thank every Member of the Senate and congressional western caucuses for their work and their expertise on this report. I look forward to turning these ideas into policies and in that way putting all of America back to work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor because this week President Obama is going to present his new jobs plan to the American people and to all of us. I am certain we will hear a lot of talk and a lot of promises. I remember when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously announced in 2010 their White House health care summit. I sat around the table at that summit. In the discussion, she said the President's new health care law would create 4 million jobs. Here is exactly what former Speaker Pelosi promised on February 25, 2010. She said: . . . this bill is not only about the health security of America, it's about jobs. In its life it will create 4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately. I ask, where are the jobs? The fact is, the President's health care law didn't create jobs. As a physician, I have come to the floor every week since the health care law has been signed and have given a doctor's second opinion about this health care law and why I believe it is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and terrible for the taxpayers. Here we are 17 months after the President signed his health care plan into law and the American people have yet to see job growth anywhere near the figures promised by Nancy Pelosi. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week the American economy generated a whopping zero jobs during the month of August. This is sobering news when we have 9.1 percent unemployment in America. The New York Times, on September 3, had an editorial called ``The Jobs Crisis,'' and let me read from it. It says: The August employment report, released on Friday, is bleak on all counts, but at least it leaves no doubt that the United States is in the grip of a severe and worsening jobs crisis. That should lend a sense of urgency to the speech on jobs that President Obama plans to deliver this week. The speech is scheduled for tomorrow night. The New York Times goes on to say: The economy added no jobs in August--zero--and the anemic numbers for June and July were revised downward. The unemployment rate is stuck at 9.1 percent, but it would be 16.2 percent if it included the swelling ranks of those who find only part-time work and the millions who have given up looking for jobs that simply do not exist. Here we are looking at this sobering news, and it seems the only connection between the health care law and the jobs market in America is that the job creators--the people who create jobs in this country-- made it very clear they cannot afford the President's new health care law. Month after month we hear from more people in the private sector who explain they will either have to fire people or stop providing coverage in order to comply with the significant expenses of the new health care law. Let me repeat. This law encourages job creators not to create jobs but to fire workers, not to hire workers. To get around this problem in the short term, the administration began doing something I did not anticipate when the health care law was signed. They began to grant waivers from the President's health care law. They said: Oh, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to you. Come and apply for a waiver. During the month of August--this past month--the administration, once again, granted another round of waivers from the President's health care law. There were another 73 waivers allowing 105,000 people to get out of the mandates of the Obama health care law. Since October of 2010, the Obama administration has granted over 1,500 annual benefit limit waivers. Now they are granting them for 3 years. These waivers now cover over 3.4 million Americans. So the law and the mandates don't have to apply to them with regard to the benefits. Whom have over 50 percent of these waivers gone to? They have gone to union people, people who have gotten their health care through a union health plan. These are the same people who supported the President's health care law. It is startling that even unions cannot afford the President's law. Remember Nancy Pelosi saying: First, we have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. As more and more Americans have found out what is in the health care law, they say we do not want this to apply to us. In fact, the Service Employees International Union said the law would be financially impossible; that it is financially impossible for them to comply with. I don't think any job creator or American family should have to bear financially impossible costs because of the President's health care law. Each time this administration releases yet another round of its health care law waivers, it reminds the American people how fatally flawed the President's new law is. As the President prepares for his speech tomorrow night, he needs to take a hard look at his health care law. He needs to face the unfortunate reality that his law actually makes it harder and more expensive for the job creators of this country to hire more people. We need to make it easier and cheaper for the job creators in this country to create private sector jobs, but yet the President's health care law makes it harder and more expensive. Tomorrow night, the President needs to change direction. Instead of giving waivers to businesses and unions, he should announce that all Americans can get a waiver from his health care law. The good news is, I have a bill he can support immediately. My bill will allow any individual--any American citizen--to submit a waiver application seeking relief from any or all of the health care law's mandates. The waivers will be granted to individuals showing that the health care law is either increasing their health care premiums or decreasing their access to benefits. The bill is simple. It is straightforward. It is S. 1395. It is called the Waive Act, and there are 16 cosponsors in the Senate. Basically, it says, if a person's costs go up or their benefits go down, they have the freedom to get out of the President's health care law. Health insurance premiums have risen 19 percent since President Obama took office. Tomorrow night, the President should announce that he will allow all Americans an opportunity to opt out of his health care law. If he did, this would be one of the best steps he could take to help America's economy. That is why I come to the floor, week after week, with a doctor's second opinion about a health care law that I believe is hurting our country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is fitting that Harriet Hageman will be inducted into the 2011 Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Harriet is known across Wyoming and across our Nation as a stalwart promoter and defender of agriculture. With this honor, she is following in the footsteps of her father Jim Hageman, who was previously inducted in the Agriculture Hall of fame in 2002. Harriet comes from a long history of agricultural producers. Her great grandfather homesteaded in Wyoming in 1879 and her parents bought their first ranch near Fort Laramie in 1961. Harriet grew up on the family's cattle ranches in the Fort Laramie area. Rather than pursuing a career in agriculture, she earned a law degree from the University of Wyoming. Yet she did not stray from the agriculture industry. Much of her legal practice has been focused on protecting agriculture's land, water, and natural resources. She uses her Ag background coupled with her fine mind to effectively argue on behalf of Wyoming's ranchers and farmers in courtrooms at all levels of the judiciary. A few of her many accomplishments should be noted. Harriet was the lead attorney for the State of Wyoming in protecting its share of the North Platte River. She fought the USDA to protect Wyoming's access to national forest lands. She successfully defended Wyoming's Open Range Law before the Wyoming Supreme Court. Her clients include ranchers, farmers, irrigation districts and grazing permitees. Harriet represents them with a passion that can only come from love of agriculture. I have had the honor of working with Harriet Hageman and have benefitted from her wisdom. I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Harriet on this well-deserved honor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, at Wyoming's State Fair, I will have the honor of inducting Niels Hansen into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Forty-eight percent of Wyoming's 97,100 square miles are managed by the Federal Government. Often, a Wyoming ranch will consist of a checkerboard of public and private lands. Running a profitable ranch, while negotiating various Federal and State regulations, is a challenge. However, Niels Hansen has done just that operating the PH Livestock Company. Niels is known as the public lands ranching leader of Wyoming. He has dedicated himself to building relationships with Federal land managers. He creates partnerships and opens lines of communication with fellow ranchers and government agencies. According to my friend, Wyoming Stock Growers Association vice president Jim Magana, Niels is highly recognized for his relentless efforts to maintain sustainable public land ranching. Niels' efforts not only benefit his four-generation Wyoming ranch, he is also an asset to agriculturalists across Wyoming. He has worked closely with the Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, field office range staff and has been a State leader on agreements in conjunction with the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the Wyoming State Grazing Board. Realizing that energy is the backbone of Wyoming's economy, Neils has brought oil and gas developers to the table. Anna Helm, Niels' sister and ranch partner, said, ``Many ranchers have come to depend upon his insightful wisdom, understanding of the issues and willing leadership to help them through difficult times of their own.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Niels Hansen, the 2011 inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming lands--both public and private--are better because of his service.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Centennial of Niobrara County, WY. The residents of Niobrara County are fortunate to live in such a timeless and scenic place. Nearly 2,500 residents live in the communities of Lusk, Manville, Lance Creek, and Van Tassel. Its many natural wonders that fill the landscape make Niobrara one of the top places to visit in the State. Part of the county includes land set aside and known as the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. This area provides a valuable habitat for Wyoming's wildlife and numerous recreation opportunities for its residents. Two rivers, the Cheyenne and the Niobrara, run through the county and can be credited for creating rich, fertile soil in the area. Although Niobrara County is one of the smallest counties in the State, it certainly has one of the most fascinating histories. The county boasts a wide array of prehistoric dinosaur fossils at its premier Spanish Diggings site. Several rare artifacts have been found and are displayed in national exhibits. The region also saw heavy traffic from Native Americans who used the grasslands as prime hunting and camping areas. Members of the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne, and the Kiowa tribes settled in the area many years ago. With the great westward expansion came the greater urbanization of the West. Niobrara County was not immune from such development-- instead, it embraced the changes. The grassland area of the county became a popular area for fur traders, homesteaders, and other emigrants caught in the throes of gold rush excitement. One popular stage stop, Running Water, was located along the banks of the Niobrara River and was used by several travelers as a spot to rest and refuel. The Cheyenne-Deadwood Stage Route, which traveled the length of the county, provided important transport of freight, gold, and passengers. This important route and the additional stage lines which passed through were essential to the development of the county. Today, the residents of Niobrara County have capitalized on that industrious spirit. Thanks to the temperate climate and the fertile soil in the Powder River Basin, Niobrara County's primary industry is agriculture. The county's farmers consistently produce profitable crops like grain, wheat, and beans, and its ranchers work diligently in livestock production. The county's vast mineral resources played a key role in the county's robust economy. Several minerals and precious metals have been discovered and mined in the grasslands of Niobrara County. Both gold and silver were discovered and mined in the early days of settlement. Later, uranium was discovered near Lusk, a discovery which sparked a statewide boom in uranium drilling. Finally, the discovery of oil in Lance Creek was perhaps the most profitable of all mineral extraction. During World War II, Lance Creek was one of the country's important oil rigs, producing vast amounts of oil needed for the American war effort. It is an honor to help the residents of Niobrara County celebrate their 100th anniversary. I invite my colleagues to visit this enterprising community in person. The residents of Niobrara County should be proud to present this heritage to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Brian Lynch for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Brian is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Encampment High School. He attends the University of Wyoming, where he is majoring in criminal justice with a concentration in pre-law. 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 last several months. I thank Brian 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 Kylie Negich for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Kylie is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Laramie High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in business administration. 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 thank Kylie for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Centennial of Goshen County, WY. Goshen County is remarkable. Its 13,250 residents are fortunate to live in the unique and diverse communities of Torrington, Lingle, Fort Laramie, LaGrange and Yoder. Nestled in a temperate basin along the North Platte River, the people have always connected with the land and its legacy. Officially recognized on February 24, 1911, the basin area has a rich history, one that gave the county its unique name. Legend has it an unknown traveler roamed the area known as Goshen's Hole. Though his identity was never discovered, he was most likely a trader or a fur trapper. The legend of the name's origins has long been celebrated and contended by the folks in this area. Goshen County was a gateway to the Wild West, and its organization benefited from those headed westward. The Goshen Hole area, a popular stop for many, saw traffic from Native Americans, mountain men and fur traders. Thousands of emigrants following the California, Mormon and Oregon trails passed through the county by way of Fort Laramie. Established in 1834 along the banks of the Laramie River, the fort served as a trading post, post office, resting point and an important military base during the Plains Indian Wars. Today, the community of Fort Laramie works to preserve the fort's key role in our State's history. Between 1876 and 1887, the area hosted part of the Cheyenne-Black Hills Stage Route between Cheyenne and Deadwood, SD. The route provided safe transport of freight, gold and passengers through land inhabited by Sioux Indians. The town of LaGrange began as one of many stage stops created to accommodate these passengers--it is now the oldest incorporated town in Goshen County. The development of the Union Pacific Railroad extension project offered new opportunities and connected the county to an ever-expanding West. Yoder began as a station along the extension line into the valley, and later prospered as an agricultural center. These extended tracks--coupled with the stage routes--were vital to the county's establishment. Today, the county is home to those looking to tame their own bit of the Wild West. Thanks to its temperate climate, agriculture is Goshen's primary industry. A highly developed irrigation system borrows waters from the North Platte River, the Hawk Springs reservoir and the Pathfinder Dam, which allows profitable crops of sugar beets, beans and wheat to prosper in the North Platte Valley. Small-acreage farms and sustainable growing practices bring the farming tradition into the 21st century. The county is consistently the leading beef producer in the state as over 200,000 head of cattle are raised each year. In addition, Goshen County is working to answer America's growing energy demands. Its proximity to the Niobrara Shale Formation provides the county with opportunities for future oil and natural gas production. In honor of the 100th anniversary of Goshen County, I urge my colleagues to see this ``Valley of Abundance'' in person. I congratulate the citizens who have worked so hard to preserve the county's heritage. They should be proud to celebrate this landmark achievement.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Daniel Zabriskie for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Daniel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Natrona County High School. He attends the University of Wyoming where he is majoring in criminal justice and minoring in communication. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I thank Daniel 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 Clayton Tanner for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Clayton is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Lander Valley High School. He attends the University of Wyoming/Casper College where he is majoring in English and journalism. 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 thank Clayton 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 Allison Strube 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. Allison is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Laramie High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in German. 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 thank Allison 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 Katherine Schum 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. Katherine is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Cheyenne Central High School. She graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she majored in elementary education with a concentration in diversity. 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 thank Katherine 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.