John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Rachel Schmidt 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. Rachel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from North Atlantic Regional High School. She graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she majored in international studies and Spanish. 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 Rachel 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, on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, I will have the honor of announcing the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming's Youth of the Year at their annual award and recognition breakfast. This event is a wonderful celebration. In addition to the Youth of the Year, the Boys and Girls Clubs will honor two of Wyoming's own: Vice President Dick Cheney and Lynne Vincent Cheney. They are being recognized for their devotion and commitment to the youth in our communities and across the State of Wyoming. While both of these distinguished individuals have received many honors and accolades, to be recognized by the Boys and Girls Clubs is very special to them. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming is a great organization that continues to have a positive impact in the lives of youth. They serve all children, regardless of economic circumstances. Dedicated staff and volunteers enthusiastically work with the students, creating an environment that fosters their positive growth and development. Young people are provided the tools and opportunities needed to succeed. Hundreds of kids benefit each year from the Boys and Girls Clubs. The mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs is to create a better future for its members through focusing on positive outcomes: academic success, good character and citizenship as well as healthy lifestyles. At this year's awards and recognition breakfast, three outstanding young people will be honored and one will be chosen as the 2011-2012 Youth of the Year. These young citizens have excelled in all of the positive outcomes, and serve as excellent examples for other youth to follow. Jessica Treto is a sophomore at Kelly Walsh High School. She loves to play card games with younger club members and admits she hardly ever wins. Jessica wants to be a counselor because she enjoys helping people. Chrissy Stufft is also a sophomore at Kelly Walsh High School. She is a cheerleader and plays third base on her softball team. Her favorite television show CSI has inspired Chrissy to be a forensic scientist. Anthony MacMillan is a junior at Natrona County High School. Anthony is an avid swimmer. Due to his love for cooking, he wants to be a pastry chef. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jessica, Chrissy, and Anthony. Knowing of these fine young people gives me the confidence that the future of America is in good hands.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Abigail Mulcahy 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. Abigail is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Central High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in music. 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 Abigail 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 Daniel DeCecco for his hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs 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 Green River High School. He attends the University of Wyoming, where he is majoring in business economics and international studies. 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 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 Jordan Brown for his hard work as an Indian Affairs Committee intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jordan is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Sheridan High School. He attends Stonehill College in Massachusetts where he is majoring in political science and minoring in business administration. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the time he has been with us. I thank Jordan 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 rise today to celebrate the Centennial of Campbell County, WY. The citizens of Campbell County are blessed to live in this beautiful environment. Located in northeastern Wyoming and nestled in the Powder River Basin, the county is bordered by the Black Hills and the Big Horn Mountains. Its 39,000 residents live in the communities of Gillette, Wright, Weston and Rozet. Land was taken from previously established Weston and Crook counties to create the new district. Officially recognized on May 23, 1911, the county was named after John A. Campbell, Wyoming's first territorial Governor. Campbell County as we know it today is vastly different from 100 years ago, but it is this shared history between today's residents and those of the past that creates a special bond. It has been host to Native Americans, fur trappers, mountain men, homesteaders, ranchers and oil men. The basin area was first used by members of the Sioux, Crow and Arapaho Native American tribes. They used the wide plains and grasslands as hunting grounds, and evidence of their presence can still be found today. Fur trappers and mountain men also traveled in the county. One such frontiersman, Robert Campbell, was a successful trader and explorer of the Rocky Mountains. He travelled through the county on his way to the Wind River Mountains. The construction of the railroad had a major impact on the development of Campbell County. As the desire to move west increased, the residents of the county recognized the need to lay tracks of their own. Incorporated as a town in 1891, Gillette was originally developed as a transfer point for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad. It was named after Edward Gillette, who was in charge of an early survey for the railroad. The addition of the railroad, along with the emigrant trails in the area, was essential to the establishment of the county. Campbell County has since capitalized on these rich opportunities for growth and development. While ranching and agriculture are important industries, the extraction of coal, oil and natural gas is widely acknowledged as the principal industry within Campbell County. The residents proudly recognized their county as the Energy Capital of the Nation. The Powder River Basin is the largest supplier of coal in the United States, providing nearly 40 percent of the Nation's coal. Coal mining has had an important role in the development of the county's infrastructure. For instance, Wright was built in close proximity to the Black Thunder coal mine, the second most productive coal mine in the United States. Improved technology in extraction methods has increased the production of coal bed methane gas and oil. These advancements will continue to serve the nation's growing energy needs well into the future. This year, the Campbell County Centennial Committee has planned several countywide celebrations, including the installation of a Survey Plaque in the Campbell County Courthouse. In addition, the Centennial Ranch Committee plans to honor the members of 33 ranches that have been in operation for 100 years or longer. It is my pleasure to recognize the following ranches and their commitment to preserving Wyoming's ranching way of life: the Brennan Ranch, T-Chair Ranch, Pumpkin Butte Ranch, Christensen Ranch, Clabaugh Ranch, Collins Ranch, Daly Ranch, Fitch Ranch, 2 Heart Ranch, Hall Ranch, Innes Ranch, Kretschman Ranch, Little Buffalo Ranch, T7 Ranch, Maycock Ranch, Mooney Ranch, Morse and Harris Family Ranch, Have Not Ranch, Oedekoven Ranch, Pahasha Ranch, Parks Ranch, Parks Evans Ranch, Paul Rourke Ranch, Sorenson Ranch, Swartz Ranch, Thar Ranch, Underwood Ranch, Wright Ranch, Barlow Ranch, Bridle Bit Ranch, John Hines Ranch, Kuhbacher Ranch and West Cross V Ranch. In honor of the centennial of Campbell County, I invite my colleagues to see this wonderful place in person. I applaud the residents of the county for their efforts to celebrate such rich history and to present it to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. Following my colleague from Utah who talked about getting the President engaged in these discussions, I noticed a large story in Thursday's New York Times: ``President on Sidelines in Critical Battle over Debt Ceiling.'' President on the sidelines. We are at a time where we are facing the largest threat to our national security, and we cannot have the President on the sidelines. When I talk about the single largest threat to our national security, I am not talking about a terrorist organization. I am not talking about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, and not famine. I am talking about our national debt. Our national debt is the threat. It is the greatest threat to our national security. I will tell my colleagues this isn't a problem for one party, the other party; it is a problem for all of us as Americans. I am not the only one who is saying that. Actually, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said the most significant threat to our Nation's security is our debt. Let me repeat: The most significant threat to our national security is our debt. My colleagues may notice that Admiral Mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. He is speaking specifically about the debt. He is doing that because the debt ceiling isn't the problem; our national debt is the threat. We have $14 trillion of debt, and it continues to grow. We are borrowing every day over $4 billion. That is over $2 million every minute. We say: Where does the money come from? Well, of the money we spent last year in this country, over 41 cents of every dollar we spent--over 41 cents of every dollar--is borrowed money, a lot of it from foreign countries, and specifically from China. How do we stay a strong and independent leader of the world if we owe that kind of debt to anyone, especially to another country who may not have our best interests at heart? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff clearly understands this. But it is not just our military leaders who understand this, families and business owners all across Wyoming understand it, and the American people understand it. We all know what the American people want. They want cuts to spending now, they want to control spending in the future, and they want accountability. They sure don't believe they are getting it out of Washington. I received an e-mail this week from a gentleman from my hometown of Casper. He looked at this whole thing and he said: The fact that the debt ceiling needs to be raised is where the problem lies. This is a systemic problem that will either be fixed or it will eventually destroy this Nation. I urge you to stand strong and oppose any spending that exceeds revenue. Using the debt ceiling, we understand, this could be a painful path. It could lead to economic problems. My forefathers put their lives at risk to prevent this kind of idiocy that the Federal Government has become. He is talking about a debt of $14 trillion. He said: Every one of my family members and neighbors is prepared to weather the storm now to prevent future catastrophe. My friends on the other side of the aisle are focused on the debt ceiling. It seems to me they have lost sight of the real problem, and that problem is the debt. Instead of working toward a higher debt ceiling, we need to be discussing ways to get our fiscal feet back on the floor, to get our fiscal house in order, and to provide the accountability the American people want. I listened to the President's address to the Nation last Monday night. It seemed to be more of a campaign speech than an address about the issues facing this country. There was blaming going on, it seemed to me. Scare tactics, class warfare. He used the word ``balanced'' about seven times. He kept talking about a balanced approach. Americans don't want a balanced approach; they want a balanced budget. They want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is the way we do it in Wyoming. That is the way many States do it. They want us to live within our means and balance the budget year after year after year. There is a lesson we could learn from so many States around the country: Live within your means every year. The American people want us to seek a real solution. They want a real solution that provides them with the peace of mind to know they will not be subjected to this sort of activity on a repeated basis. They want the peace of mind as well as the economic security that they believe as Americans--they believe as Americans--is a basis for this great country. They are looking for a solution that recognizes the current system in Washington is broken, and they are looking for a solution that says we realize we need to take immediate action to fix it. Why is it broken? Why do we need immediate action? It is broken because we have failed to live within our means for so very long. It is also broken because this body, the Senate, has not had a budget for over 800 days. For over 800 days there has not been a budget in the Senate. One brought forth by the President failed; it got no votes. Ninety-seven people voted against it. Not one Democrat voted for the President's budget--not one. It seems to be broken because Washington is more focused on short- term political gain instead of the long-term consequences of our actions. We saw that a little earlier with the discussions on the Senate floor. I am ready to vote on the proposal on the Senate floor. The minority leader recommended a vote immediately. Yet it was objected to by the majority leader. Since the beginning of this entire debate, I have had a very clear bottom line. We need to avoid defaulting and implement the spending controls to get our finances back in order. What is the President's bottom line? The President said it: The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election into 2013. The President's only bottom line: Ignore and avoid the biggest threat to our national security until after the next election. Contrary to what the President wants, we cannot ignore, we cannot avoid this issue until after the next election. People all across the country are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the economy. They are worried about the debt, and they are worried about the spending. The American people want us to take action. They want us to cut costs. They want us to control spending. They want us to enforce accountability across every branch of the Federal Government. They would like us to put progress ahead of partisanship. They want us to put people before politics. The decisions that must be made aren't easy for either party. This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, Independents; it is about America. It is about this country. People all across the country--and I have been in my office since early this morning, and we have been answering the phones. What I am hearing is what all of my colleagues should be hearing if they are answering their phones: Enough is enough. That is what the American people are saying. We are now at the eleventh hour, and we must not lose sight of our goal. It is more important to find a real solution than it is to settle for a quick compromise. So I look at some of these letters and calls and e-mails that have been coming in, and one is from Pinedale, WY. It says: It is better to bite a small bullet now than a cannon shell later on. That is a Wyoming way of talking. That was from Pinedale, WY. A couple from Casper, a different e-mail: This country is in dire financial straits. Since I work for the Federal Government, I have more to lose than most Americans, but I don't want to give this administration a blank check. This is someone who works for the Federal Government: I don't want to give the administration a blank check. We have to get this country back on track to fiscal responsibility and this is the open debate. I realize my job could be cut just to get there, but the national debt is too large to ignore. This is a Wyoming person talking, putting the country in front of politics and putting the country in front of himself. He goes on to say: We must get it under control or there is more to lose than just our jobs. The economic consequences of not getting this under control will devastate this country years down the road. We have to start now before it is too late. Then another from a woman in Casper who said: It is time to cut up the Federal Government's credit card. The current debt situation is an insult to all of us who live within our means. People in the country live within their means; States that balance their budget every year live within their means. It is time for Washington to live within its means. People are tired of the budget tricks. They are tired of the accounting gimmicks. They are tired of the empty promises. That is what is affecting the people of this country. They want accountability, and it is our responsibility to provide it to them. People are looking for peace of mind, for good judgment, and they want people to listen to them. Yet what I see are people focused on politics on the other side of the aisle at a time when the greatest threat to our Nation--to this great country, to America--is a national debt that is out of control and that is increasing at the rate of over $4 billion every year. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time is left on the Republican side?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota is here, and he has been a Member of this body longer than I have. To me, this debt ceiling increase seems to be the largest in history by any standard, whether we include inflation or not. I think the previous largest one was $1.9 trillion, and that was also with this President. So when we think about this President and what he inherited and where we are now, it seems to me--I would ask my colleague from South Dakota to respond--it just seems he is making it worse.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the column that has been referred to, the Charles Krauthammer column from this morning's Washington Post called ``The Great Divide.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Nation watches the activities in the Capitol and on Capitol Hill as someone from the State of Wyoming, where we live within our means and balance our budget every year, and as a result we actually have a surplus in the State. Contrast that to what is happening in Washington with an incredible debt--$14 trillion--more than people can actually fathom. But people understand spending more than they have or more than comes in, and families all around the country realize they can't do that. Well, in America, as a nation we have been doing that for many years-- spending money we don't have, sending out more than comes in, to the point we have had to borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow. Each time we borrow too much, which continues to happen, we have to raise the debt ceiling--the amount of money that can be borrowed. The President has now asked that we raise the debt ceiling again, but he has asked that it be raised the largest amount in the history of our country--in the history of this great land. That has an impact on people and families all around the country. They are concerned because they know they can't spend more than they bring in, they can't spend more than they have. They think back to the days of John Kennedy saying: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and people in Wyoming are concerned that it may switch one day to: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country must do for China because last year, of every dollar we spent in this country, 41 cents of it was borrowed, half of it from overseas, and a lot of it from China. So how do we stay a great and strong nation, the leader of the world, when we owe that kind of money to another country--a country that does not necessarily have our own best interests at heart? That is why as this debate and discussion is going on about the debt ceiling, the debt limit, people in Wyoming tell me their biggest concern is not the debt limit, it is the debt. The debt is the threat. It is a threat to our own national security. Those aren't just my words; those are the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. So I am so pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by my colleague from Nebraska, a neighbor, a next-door neighbor, a former Governor of Nebraska, who, as a Governor, lived with a system where he had to balance the budget every year, and the buck stopped with him. So I ask my colleague from Nebraska, a former Cabinet Member who has run a major Cabinet and a department within the U.S. Government, perhaps he could share with us what was involved in having to make those tough decisions and actually being held to make those decisions.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting because my colleague from South Dakota mentioned this figure, this two point some trillion dollars. People in Wyoming last week said: How do they come up with that number? Like the Senator, I agree that for every $1 they want to increase the debt limit, they should say we should find $1 of real savings, honest savings, savings you can point to, as the Senator needed to do as Governor, and as we believe here. That is what the approach they are dealing with in the House does. They have come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling, deal with avoiding a default, and they extend this for a number of months. People say: Well, how do you get this $2.4 trillion number? The President had a White House press conference last week, on July 22, and he said--it is astonishing. The President of the United States told the country: The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. Not extend the debt ceiling so we can avoid default, not so we can focus on jobs and the economy and the overall debt and the spending, but so that--as he said, his bottom line, the only bottom line, is that we have to extend it beyond the next election. Then the Treasury Secretary was on one of the television shows on July 24, and he said: Most important, we have to lift this threat of default . . . for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election. . . . This debt is the threat. This debt of nearly $15 trillion, going to over $20 trillion in the next couple years, to me is the threat. The elections can take care of themselves. I think the American people will be shocked, astonished, and disappointed to hear that is the President's only bottom line. I do not know what the Senator's comments or thoughts are on that, but I am expecting better.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Nebraska. I think about the fact that he had to use honest figures, honest accounting. I see now a proposal by the majority leader that, to me, seems to be full of accounting gimmicks, tricks, things such as using money as savings that was never intended to be spent at all, saying we will save all of this money by not being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan for the next 10 years and counting $1 trillion in savings when there was never even an intention to spend that in the first place. I don't think anyone in this body or on Capitol Hill believes we will be at surge levels for the next 10 years in 2 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. So I ask my colleague from Nebraska--and we are also joined by our colleague from South Dakota--he couldn't have done something like that in balancing his budget in Nebraska?

Mr. BARRASSO. I wanted to do that because I also want to have printed in the Record--and I will read just a couple of paragraphs--a letter that appeared in today's Casper Star Tribune by Eric Mitchell. It is titled ``Smarter than you think.'' He says: I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt. Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat and get fish for family and friends. He is from Crowheart, WY, a small community. He said: I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than may dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything. This is a 10-year-old. He said: Government shouldn't try to buy everything. It is my job and the people's job to buy the things we need. I don't want the government to think for me. They don't know that I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers tell me what to do, because they aren't always responsible for their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do with their money. I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the rules. Here you have a youngster in Wyoming who knows of values, who is raised in a family where they live within their means, lives in a State where we balance our budget every year, and I think the lesson Eric has for the people of Wyoming and the people of this country is one we should listen to: We should live within our means, not spend more than we have, not continue to borrow. And the threat to our Nation, our greatest threat to our national security continues to be the debt, and it is incumbent upon this institution to deal with that. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I follow my colleague who mentioned our need to prevent default. The need we have--the reason we are here and why there will be a vote in the House and the Senate tonight--has to do with the need of our Nation to prevent default, and also, of course, the need to cut spending. Our problem is that we spend too much. Americans all around the country are calling in to Members of the House and Senate and saying: Hey, let's get things under control and let's cut the spending. My friends on the other side of the aisle, I am happy to see with the proposals being brought forth, are beginning to understand what my constituents in Wyoming have known from the very beginning: Americans are not taxed too little, Washington spends too much. But the President seems to be more concerned about the next election than about the next generation of Americans. I was astonished last week when the President was addressing the Nation and he talked about what his bottom line was in this whole debate. He said: The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. This was the President of the United States saying this: The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. Since 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times. On average, the debt ceiling is usually for about 8 months. But now the folks on the other side, and the President, are calling for the largest debt ceiling increase in history and it is designed to last a lot longer than 8 months--almost for a year and a half, as the President wants it to go into 2013; and specifically, as he said, through the next election. The President's Treasury Secretary has essentially said the same thing. He said: We have to lift this threat of default from the economy for, you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election. Well, if the President and the Treasury Secretary get their way, they will be able to ignore the single biggest threat to our national security until after the next election. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said: The greatest threat to our national security is the debt. The President could have gotten what he wanted last week--which is an increase in the debt ceiling beyond the election--when the House passed its cut, cap, and balance legislation. I was one of the original cosponsors of that in the Senate. I was in favor of it, supported it, and continue to support that. Instead, the President issued a veto threat. He told Democrats in the Senate to kill it. After all, they are still the majority party. The Senate Democrats, I believe tonight, will have the power to save our country's finances once again. They can do that by passing the Boehner plan--pass it through this body and send it to the President's desk for him to sign. Instead, the majority leader has said no Democrat--not one--will support this plan. It has what the President wants. It raises the debt ceiling. It lets us, as a nation, avoid default. But it doesn't take us beyond the election. It is interesting. It would seem support by the Democrats for this plan would clearly signal their desire to continue working to rein in Washington's wasteful spending, to get our fiscal house in order. But that doesn't seem to be the signal the President wants to send. The Boehner plan is the only plan currently on the table that can get through the House of Representatives and protect us from default. Republicans have put forward plan after plan. Democrats and the White House have done nothing but criticize from the sidelines. The White House Press Secretary has even said: Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down and likely voted down. That is what he said. He said the Democrats have even sent a letter asking for a long-term debt increase. But how can we have a long-term debt increase if they have no plan to get there? The White House Secretary claimed recently the President's plan is well-known. He said: There is no plan that has been offered, certainly in the last several months, about which more detail is known. I say: Where are the details? I want to know how I could get this well-known plan and share it with my constituents back home in Wyoming. How did the CBO score this plan that, according to the President's Press Secretary, is a plan about which so much detail is known? Where is it? What is the CBO score? Where is the text of it? How can we read it and bring it here and discuss or debate it? These things don't exist--neither a CBO score nor a text--because the White House has continually refused to release a plan, even with pleas coming from Congress and from the media. I can understand why the President might be reluctant, since the time he last brought a budget to this body it was defeated 97 to 0. Not one Democrat voted in support of what the President had proposed--not one. No one supported the President's budget plan. There is a Reid plan being proposed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Reid plan cuts about $2.2 trillion from our budget over the next 10 years. But if you dig a little deeper, you find these so-called cuts are accounting gimmicks. The House Budget Committee looked at the Reid plan and their assessment was not very flattering. Let me quote from that assessment: Reid's plan relies on the inaccurate assumption that surge- level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is scheduled to continue over the next decade. No one in America, and I would hope no one in the White House, believes that surge level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is scheduled to continue over the next decade. But the plan endorsed by the President relies on such an inaccurate assumption. Why is he trying to mislead the American people? The Democrats are claiming to save money by cutting spending that was never, ever going to be spent in the first place. This is the strongest possible proof the White House is not realistically dealing with the situation and is not, in my opinion, serious about realistically and reliably cutting the debt. In fact, even if you assume the Reid plan would work, it wouldn't cut spending fast enough to keep up with the spending the President is doing. The President wants to borrow at least $2.4 trillion to get him through the election--to get him into 2013. But the last draft of the floor plan we are going to be asked to discuss cuts $2.2 trillion over 10 years while raising the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion. It would take over a decade to pay back what this President wants to borrow over the next year and a half. So we would still be borrowing at a much higher rate than we are cutting. That is not responsible leadership. Responsible leadership would be to recognize the solution to our country's financial woes, and that solution is to avoid default, while consistently cutting spending and balancing our books the way that families do. That solution would require us to keep working until we get it right. That is the theory at the heart of Speaker Boehner's plan. The President talks about wanting a balanced approach. That means different things to different people. When the President is talking about wanting more taxes, I think what Americans want is actually a balanced budget. Speaker Boehner will bring us one step closer to that balance by forcing a vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I look forward to voting for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We live under a constitution in the State of Wyoming, and from the very beginning we have balanced our budget. As a result, we have excess money and scholarships available to all students to study at our universities and community colleges, because year after year we live within our means. The President talked a bit about public opinion being important in this debate. Yet he is opposed to a balanced budget constitutional amendment. In a recent Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll, 65 percent of Americans say they support a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So where is the respect for that public opinion? The Boehner plan works because its authors have listened to the American people. The White House refuses to seriously confront the problems facing our Nation, and Democrats are trying to shut down the only plan that can pass the House and save us from default. I am alarmed at their denial about how to solve these problems. The President must not veto America into default. It is time we pass a real plan that cuts spending and avoids default. We don't need to wait until midnight on August 1 or August 2. We can do it, and we should do it today. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today having listened to my colleagues and looking at the most recent job data, which shows the effects of our struggling economy. Unemployment is going up, wages are going down, and there are concerns all around the country with jobs, the economy, the debt, and spending. I have to say, I certainly believe, as somebody who has practiced medicine for 25 years in Wyoming and taken care of families all around the Cowboy State and been very involved in the debate over the health care law, that the President's health care law makes matters worse, absolutely makes matters worse. The President's health care law makes matters worse by forcing employers to either offer government-approved health insurance or pay higher expenses. Each day it becomes obvious to me the new health care law is designed to ultimately end employer-provided coverage altogether and to encourage Americans to join government-run exchanges. That is why, as a doctor, I come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. Under this law businesses are permitted to drop out of paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The fine is about $2,000 per employee. This number is far smaller than what it would actually cost the business to provide family health benefits to each of their employees. So what happens with small businesses in this country? Well, they are going to face an ever-clearer incentive to drop coverage for the people they employ. They are not required to pay this fine for the first 50 workers who lose coverage. So the question is, Where are these people supposed to go? Where do they go for their insurance? How does it work? The President promised them if they like what they have, they can keep it. Yet the incentives built into the health care law seem to be encouraging employers to drop their employees. So where do they go? Well, the new health care law sets up what are called health care exchanges for these people to enter. Whether they want to or not they will be forced to go that way. These exchanges are shorthand for insurance markets where as much as 80 percent of the cost of the family's insurance could be actually borne by taxpayers. Under these circumstances, the natural response is for businesses to drop coverage for their employees altogether and then simply offer them some less expensive cash benefits. Meanwhile, what happens to the employees who are going to lose the coverage they may like and then try to replace it because that is what is going to happen? They will have to replace it with a plan Washington mandates. That is of concern to a lot of Americans, and this may be very bad news for the patient and is really bad news for taxpayers. Experts predict the annual cost to provide government insurance subsidies could cost up to nine times more than what the White House originally claimed. If that isn't proof enough the health care law is the wrong prescription to help America's job creators continue offering coverage to their workers, let's take a look at some of the things that have just come out in the last week. This week, on Monday, July 25, the National Federation of Independent Business--a group that represents small businesses all around the country--released an astonishing new report. The NFIB surveyed 750 small businesses. These are small businesses of less than 50 employees. The survey asked these small businesses if they planned to drop health insurance coverage should their employees become eligible for this government subsidy to buy health insurance in the so-called exchange. More than one-quarter of the small businesses who offer coverage today--over one-quarter of the small businesses that offer coverage today--said they were very likely to drop coverage. I repeat: Very likely to drop coverage. Another 31 percent said they are somewhat likely to drop coverage; that they needed to look into it to find the specifics. When we take a look and add the ones who are very likely and somewhat likely to drop coverage, we are looking at over half the small businesses in this country dropping insurance coverage and effectively dumping their employees into the government-run exchange. The small business group in the survey and the response from these small businesses prompted the Wall Street Journal to print an editorial highlighting this data. It is entitled ``The Flight to the Exchanges.'' When I read this, I said: Gee, I couldn't have said it better myself. The President's health care law wraps businesses in reams of bureaucratic redtape and uncertainty. Adding insult to injury, on Monday, July 11, of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services released yet another proposed regulation mandated by the health care law. The Obama administration issued its proposed insurance exchange regulation. What the rules do is give the States the specific framework they must use to set up a program or an exchange with this Washington-approved and mandated insurance. Here we go again, another example of where this administration takes roughly 30 pages from the health care law and turns it into 340 pages of bureaucratic Washington rules and regulations. Of course, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is trying to sell this new rule as offering competition and uses the word ``flexibility.'' But nothing could be further from the truth. How flexible can a 347-page Washington rule be when it is a rule that contains the word ``must'' 580 times and includes the word ``require'' 811 times? How flexible can that Washington rule actually be? Well, after examining all the rule's ``musts'' and ``requires,'' one thing is very clear: This administration is paying lipservice to State flexibility while their policy is promoting a Washington-mandated, Washington-dictated, Washington-enforced approach. This regulation details a very complex and confusing process that States are going to have to follow. The States have to follow these confusing rules in an effort to prove to the Department of Health and Human Services they meet its Washington mandates to set up and run the insurance exchanges, and they have very little time to do it. So this administration creates onerous new mandates and then fails to give States ample time to meet their overwhelming set of requirements. Let's put this into context for the States. Comments of the administration's proposed rules are due this September 28. Typically, it can take the Department of Health and Human Services 6 months to review those comments about the rules and issue a final rule. That means we would likely see a final rule in March of 2012. Remember, there are significant details missing from these exchange regulations. This regulation is only part of the details States need to review before they can decide whether to run a health insurance exchange on their own or let the Federal Government do it. The administration has yet to release rules explaining the health care law's essential health benefits package, the individual eligibility to participate in the exchanges, quality standards for the exchanges, and quality standards for the participating insurance plans. Those details may not come out until October or November of this year. This means States still do not know what the minimum set--the minimum set--of health services individuals, small businesses, and insurers will have to offer in the exchange. Pending missing details and further rules expected to come from the administration this fall, final rules-- final rules--may be in place finally in May or June of 2012. States would then have to be prepared to submit their plan in June of 2012 to Health and Human Services to be certified. But what happens if the rules aren't out by then? Many State legislatures end their sessions by June, making complying with this tight time line extremely difficult, if not impossible. It seems to me this administration will have had 2 years to post their final regulations while the States may have only 2 months to comply. What happens if a State isn't ready? They say have no fear; Washington is here to help. That is what they say. If the Department of Health and Human Services says a State's insurance exchange is not in compliance, then Washington will swoop in and set up its own program. This is often called the Federal fallback or the federally facilitated exchange, big fancy words for Washington bureaucrats telling States what they have to do. The irony of all this is the administration's rules offer very few details explaining what this Federal fallback exchange will look like, so the States don't even know what happens if the Federal fallback comes into play. Is the Department of Health and Human Services creating a stealth, back-door Federal exchange? If a State doesn't have adequate time to meet all the operational program requirements and the burdensome review process, it sounds to me like the Obama administration will then take control of the States. Why should a State such as Utah, for example, that has created an especially designed insurance marketplace be forced to comply with onerous and costly requirements of this rule? If they are not willing to comply, will they face the consequences that Washington will make the final decision? States should be encouraged to create innovative solutions that meet the unique needs of their constituents, not forced to follow a one-size-fits-all laundry list of Washington mandates. This is why I returned to the floor today, as a physician who has practiced medicine for a long time, with a doctor's second opinion, to tell you I believe this health care law is one that is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and it is bad for taxpayers. It is why I believe it is important we repeal and replace this health care law. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record an article written by Bobbie Frank, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts and published on July 16, 2011, in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. The article's title is ``Muddy waters: EPA, Army Corps Seek to Define More Jurisdiction as Federal.'' I have concluded, just as this article has, that the Clean Water Act, CWA, jurisdictional guidance being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction. This unprecedented exercise of power will allow EPA to trump States rights, and vitiate the authority of State and local governments to make local land and water use decisions. This is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the CWA Federal regulatory program. Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the CWA's mandates and costs of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer permitting delays. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in Wyoming and across the United States. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, ranching, electric transmission, transportation, energy development, and mining will all be affected, and thousands of jobs will be lost. In May of this year, 19 Senators joined me in a letter to EPA expressing our strong opposition to this guidance. I will continue to fight to protect our States from this Washington power grab. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I referred.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have just about every week since the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I have great concerns about the law that was forced through this Senate. I come to the floor because it seems that the more Americans find out and learn about this health care law, the less they like it. A majority of Americans now in national polls say they want out. They absolutely want out. Since October of 2010, the administration has granted waivers-- waivers--to unions, businesses, insurers, and actually to whole States because they cannot afford the health care law's burdensome mandates. The Secretary of Health and Human Services continues to release more waivers and did so again last Friday. They have now granted a total of 1,471 annual benefit limit waivers, and this has covered 3.2 million Americans. That is why I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will allow every American--every American--to apply for a waiver from the President's health care law. Under my bill, any American can submit a waiver application seeking relief from any or all of the health care law's mandates. All those Americans will have to do is simply show what unions and corporations have shown in order to get their waivers--nothing more, nothing less. Waivers will be granted to individuals who show that the health care law is either increasing their insurance premiums or decreasing their access to benefits. That is all they have to show. So far, this administration has ignored most Americans demand for a way out of the health care law, and Americans are looking for a way out of it. Instead, this administration has granted half the waivers--half the waivers--to people who get their health coverage through unions. Although those people represent a very small percentage of the workers in America, they got half of all the waivers. It is neither fair nor is it reasonable. These are the same unions--the same unions--that lobbied for and supported the health care law. But now that they have actually read it and found out what is in it, even though it has been passed--too late now; we thought too late--but they have been getting waivers so they do not have to live under the mandates of the health care law. We are talking about unions such as the Service Employees International Union. This is what they said about the health care law. These are people who lobbied for the health care law. Now they have found out what is in it, and they say to live under it would be financially impossible. A union that lobbied for the health care law now says it would be financially impossible to live under it. It does not just apply to that union; it applies to Americans all across this great land. So I do not think any Americans should have to bear financially impossible costs because of the law. The financially impossible mandates and elements of this bill have absolutely become more obvious to more Americans as they have taken the time to look at the rules and the regulations. That is why, frankly, this steady drip of waivers coming out of Health and Human Services-- giving waivers to many of their friends--has become such an embarrassment for this administration and why they actually recently abruptly changed the rules. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that all employees and organizations that cannot afford the law's crushing mandates--and there are many--must jump through a new set of hoops. It used to be that they would get a 1-year waiver. Now all employers and organizations, even those that have already gotten a waiver, must apply for long-term waivers by September of this year. The long-term waivers will last all the way until 2014. Instead of ending the waiver process, the administration should extend the waiver process to include all Americans. That is what my bill does. If not, families, companies, and organizations of all sizes will soon be hit with these crushing mandates. Under the administration's current plan, employers will be forced to provide $750,000 worth of coverage to every employee this year. By next September, that number balloons to $2 million. Beyond that, there is no limit--it continues to go higher and higher. So if you are an employer and you cannot afford $2 million in coverage next year, well, you better apply for your waiver now, that long-term waiver, before September of this year; otherwise, you are going to be stuck with costs that only get higher and higher. This, to me, is what the administration wants to do because they do not want to put out waivers in 2012, an election year, which is going to cause additional attention to how unpopular this health care law continues to be. Let's talk about some Americans who get together--people in any community, in my State, in your State, Mr. President--and want to start a new business. They are thinking about starting a new business after September, thinking about, Do we do it this summer? Do we wait until the fall? If these people want to start a new business and hire people and they want to start that business after September, they are going to be faced with two difficult choices: They can offer high-cost, government-approved health insurance--that is what the health care law says--making it very expensive for them to try to open a new business, to try to hire workers, to put America back to work--we are at a time when there is 9.2 percent unemployment in this country--or these people trying to start a new business can refuse to offer coverage at all because they can't afford the health care law's sky-high mandates. So the incentives in the health care law will encourage businesses to do what? Well, to drop insurance coverage if they are providing it right now. Under the law, businesses are permitted to drop out of paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The fine is going to be $2,000 per employee. The fine is far smaller than the exploding costs imposed by the health care law. So I think this explains why McKinsey & Company recently reported that up to 50 percent of employers are expected to stop offering employer-provided health care coverage. The employees who are dumped--what happens to them? Well, they will be forced to get their insurance through a government exchange, an exchange run by Washington, which is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayers. They are going to be dumped into the exchange. The annual cost of subsidizing these ballooning numbers of insurance policies, by my calculation, is about $900 billion. Well, that is nine times higher than what the White House has claimed. In short, the taxpayers of this country will be stuck with a bill of nearly $1 trillion every year. Well, I am going to continue to come to the floor week after week, continue to fight to repeal and replace this health care law with patient-centered care--patient-centered care--that lowers costs for all Americans and improves their care. So I will continue with the second opinions because until we are able to repeal and replace the health care law, I am going to move forward with what is now the Waive Act. This bill offers all Americans the freedom to choose--the freedom that has been taken away from them by the President's health care law. It gives them the right to seek and be granted a waiver out of the President's health care law. It is time to transfer power from Washington back to the American people. This will ensure they can get the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because we are discussing the cut, cap, and balance legislation, which I support. This gets back to a poster I have had at home with my kids over the years. I have a copy of it here. It is called ``the two penny difference.'' It says that if you earn a dollar and you spend the 99 cents, you are OK. But spend $1.01 and you are heading for trouble. This is from many years ago. Today, spending seems more fashionable than saving. What once was called ``poor money management'' is now called ``deficit spending.'' Whatever it is called, it leads to inevitable headaches for people, companies, and even for governments. Frankly, that is the situation in which we find ourselves today, a major headache, because as a nation we have continued to spend money we don't have. As a result, we have been borrowing money, significant amounts of money. Actually, it is about $4 billion a day. A lot of it we are borrowing from overseas, and much of it from China. You say, how does one maintain oneself as an independent, strong, and forceful nation when it owes that sort of debt to someone else? What the American people have told me as I traveled around my State is that Americans believe--and the people of Wyoming clearly believe-- they want Washington to cut spending, not increase taxes. The White House doesn't seem to hear that message. They are ignoring it, tuning it out. They have admitted they don't have a plan to cut Washington wasteful spending, and actually the President doesn't think he needs one. I will quote the White House press secretary: Leadership is not proposing a plan. You know, it is saddening, but it is not surprising given this White House's track record of changing positions, saying one thing and doing another, and nobody can predict what they will do. Last week, the President said he would not support a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. He even warned the House majority leader: ``Don't call my bluff.'' We have all seen it on television. Now we know it was a bluff. The President is now saying he might welcome a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. Yesterday, the President announced--or it was announced by his spokesman--that they would consider the short-term increase. So it is hard to tell what they are thinking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A lot of times it depends which way the wind is blowing. White House officials aren't the only ones who think it is better to not propose a plan. The story in Roll Call yesterday said that the senior Senator from New York warned the Democrats to not release a plan. The article even said they told the budget chairman not to propose a budget because it would give others around the country something to shoot at. We have been here for over 800 days since a budget was passed through the Senate, and a Senator tells the chairman of the Budget Committee don't let them see the budget. According to this article, it said he thought it was politically helpful to spend time ``attacking corporate jet owners and defending entitlements.'' Our entitlements are going to be bankrupt in just over 10 years, and some folks don't want to produce a plan to save them or to strengthen them. That is what we are hearing on the floor of the Senate. People often try to figure out how large this debt is that we have. We spend more on interest on our debt--just interest--each and every day than it would cost to buy several hundred corporate jets, which the senior Senator from New York is railing against. And that is just the interest alone on the debt. That is what kind of money we owe. This isn't the kind of leadership America needs right now. Even though the White House and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to send different signals each day, Republicans remain committed to cutting spending. In fact, we put forward the only plan that has passed either House of Congress. It is called cut, cap, and balance. It will cut spending. The American people realize we continue to spend money we don't have. It will cap future spending, and it will require Washington to balance its budgets. Wyoming does that every year. Every other alternative in the Congress, on the Hill, around town, is either undefined or unfinished or only speculative. I am pleased that the Senate will soon vote on cut, cap, and balance, which is a plan that is good for our country. It is common sense that when Washington is $14 trillion in debt, we must cut spending. When Washington borrows $4 billion a day, we must cap future spending. When Washington borrows $2 million every single minute, we must learn to balance our budget. Americans understand our country can't continue down this same track. We cannot continue to spend money we don't have. Cut, cap, and balance is the best plan for America. I yield the floor.

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