John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act. For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface leases of tribal trust lands. The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use activities on tribal lands. The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of their lands. In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on the measure. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring this important legislation. In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act. For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface leases of tribal trust lands. The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use activities on tribal lands. The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of their lands. In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on the measure. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring this important legislation. In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Texas.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century as an orthopaedic surgeon, taking care of families across the State, and to present a physician's second opinion on what has happened with the health care law people are dealing with. As Nancy Pelosi said 1 year ago: ``First we have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it.'' The American people are finding out what is in it and, frankly, they are not happy with it. They don't like it, they don't want to live with it, and they don't want to live under it. One year ago, when we started this discussion, what we heard and what I believed as a physician was that what people are looking for is the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a cost they can afford. This 2,700-page bill that is costing trillions of dollars doesn't deliver that at all. To me, it is a bill that makes it harder to create jobs. It increases the cost of care, eliminates choice, raises taxes, is locking 16 million Americans into a broken Medicaid system, and is taking $500 billion from our seniors--not to help take care of Medicare and solve that problem but to start a whole new government entitlement program. I was visiting with one of my colleagues, Dr. Kris Keggi, an orthopedic surgeon whom I trained under in my residency program. Just the impact on seniors alone who need hip and knee replacements--we know when we take that kind of money away from Medicare, it doesn't make it easier for seniors to get the care they need. Two courts have ruled--one in Virginia and one in Florida--that this health care law and the mandate that everybody in the country must buy or obtain government-approved health insurance is unconstitutional. The States are at an impasse in knowing what to do. How do they react? What will the Supreme Court decide? What kind of resources must the States commit? That is why I am delighted to be joined on the floor by Senator Hutchison from Texas. I think she has the right answer. She has introduced, as an amendment to the bill we are discussing on the floor, the Save our States Act. It is an amendment to suspend implementing these health care reform measures until the lawsuits have been settled and we actually get a clear understanding. I believe this law is unconstitutional. I ask my colleague--and I note there are quite a few Senators who have cosponsored this legislation--if she would perhaps share, as part of a second opinion, her thoughts on what the States have to live under now and what rights and opportunities the States should have.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, to follow up on that, I am so pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Save our States Act. States are very concerned. As I heard my colleague from Texas say, 44 States are in the red right now. When we hear the complaints from Governors of both parties--they are all having to live under this law-- they have great concerns. Some States, as my colleague notes, have actually applied for waivers so they don't have to live under the constraints of the law. The State of Maine has been given a waiver, 2\1/2\ million Americans have been given waivers by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Many of those are union workers who actually supported the law. When they found out what the law was going to cost-- as in the example the Senator has given from Corpus Christi--they said: We can't live under this. To be forced to put out this expense and pay for it at a time of huge financial challenges for our States, it seems that the Save our States Act is a rational, logical, commonsense way to deal with this. I will be home in Wyoming this weekend, very likely at a health fair, visiting with people from the communities. Health care fairs are ways to get low-cost health screenings. We know early prevention and early detection of problems are ways to keep down the cost of health care. Those are measures that work. We need to repeal and replace this health care law with things that are commonsense solutions that work. Of course, we can make it legal to allow people to buy insurance across State lines, give people individual incentives to stay healthy, allow people who buy individual health insurance to get the same tax breaks as big companies, and deal with the lawsuit abuse doctors will tell us impacts the way they practice and raises the cost of care. There are so many things we need to do. That is why I come to the floor again with a doctor's second opinion on the health care law, saying it is time to repeal and replace this health care law and replace it with something that works for the American people. This law we have passed and is now on the books is one I believe is unconstitutional and one that the Save our States Act will help our States deal with. This is a way that I think will help the health care of Americans who are struggling at this time to deal with the onerous requirements they see coming at them under the President's new health care law. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about jobs, the economy, and our Nation's energy. In a few minutes the President will be speaking at Georgetown University about energy. I rise today to talk about the President's Environmental Protection Agency and his efforts to regulate our global climate by taxing, by using a backdoor method called cap and tax, a proposal that we will be debating here in the Senate and are debating today. Folks back home recall the debate about cap and tax. It happened over the last few years. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency is trying do it through a backdoor method. Attempts to pass this massive energy tax on to the hard-working families all across the country have failed. It failed in Congress, and it failed because the American public has said we do not want new energy taxes. Americans don't want to pay more for gasoline at the pump. Yet they are experiencing it every day. I saw it this past weekend in Wyoming. Week after week the price at the pump goes up. American families don't want to pay more for electricity to heat their homes and run their small businesses. Yet the President's Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to bypass this Congress and enact their own cap-and-tax policy through regulation. Cap and tax is unacceptable to the American people. It was unacceptable 3 years ago, it was unacceptable 2 years ago, it was unacceptable last year, and it is still unacceptable today. The EPA may think they know better than the American people. That is why this EPA must be stopped. There are different ways to stop the EPA's ongoing regulations. We have three proposals before us today, but only one is a solution. Of the other amendments, one is a surrender and another is a distraction. The McConnell-Inhofe amendment, the one I support, is an amendment that will block the EPA's attempt to enact the same cap-and-tax bill that has been defeated time and time again on Capitol Hill. That is the solution I will talk about shortly. However, I wish to talk about the amendments I have concern with. One is the Baucus amendment. I do not support the Baucus amendment. To me, it is an attempt to surrender in the face of the EPA's dramatic regulatory overreach. It is the so-called ``agriculture exemption.'' When I talk to people in agriculture--the so-called agricultural exemption doesn't shield agricultural producers from increased fuel, increased energy, and increased fertilizer costs. The factories, refineries, and powerplants that are the glue that holds the farming industry together and allows it to function will be hit with significant energy taxes under the Baucus amendment. The aftershock will be felt by American small businesses and farmers across the West and the Midwest. Farmers and small businesses will face higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs, higher diesel costs, and higher fertilizer costs. Everything from driving a tractor to shipping your produce to market will skyrocket. Farms will close, and the cost of produce at the local grocery store will go up for all Americans. We are not just seeing pain at the pump; people are paying more for gas, but they are also paying more for groceries these days. This will make that worse. If you have any doubt about the impact the Baucus amendment will have on farms, talk to the American Farm Bureau because they oppose this amendment. Another amendment dealing with the EPA is the Rockefeller amendment. It calls for a partial delay of EPA regulations for 2 years. This is not a delay, it is a distraction. The question is, does it truly delay the regulation of greenhouse gases? Not really. A couple are delayed-- two of six--but four greenhouse gases are not. If that sounds like only a partial delay, you are correct, it is only partial. Does the Rockefeller amendment put in safeguards to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency abides by the 2-year partial delay? No, it doesn't. The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to stop the EPA from stalling construction permits during the 2 years. The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from retroactively requiring costly mandates on small businesses, powerplants, and manufacturing facilities. It also does not prevent climate change nuisance suits, which are filed in court by groups opposed to fossil fuel development. It seems to me the Rockefeller amendment only delays job growth, while giving a green light to EPA to proceed with regulations that will be costly to American families and to our American economy. For those of us looking to protect jobs across the country and restore Congress's authority to determine our own energy future, this type of amendment can only be described as a partial delay. It is a distraction. We don't need a surrender or a distraction; what we need is a solution. The solution is the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. This amendment restores the Clean Air Act to its true meaning and congressional intent. Let me get back to that. This amendment restores the Clean Air Act to its true meaning and congressional intent. The McConnell-Inhofe amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and tax. They are trying to do it in a backdoor route with cap and tax. But the McConnell amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and tax by blocking EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, by repealing the EPA's endangerment finding that says carbon dioxide is a threat to public health, by repealing the tailoring rule that says EPA can arbitrarily pick and choose which businesses they want to target, and also by applying it immediately to all greenhouse gases. This is the amendment we must pass to rein in EPA and to protect jobs. This is the amendment that has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the American Farm Bureau, and Americans for Prosperity. The list of supporters of this amendment is extensive. We need to get serious about America's energy future. Congress needs the time to get this policy right. We need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it without raising energy prices or hurting American families and jobs. The McConnell-Inhofe amendment is the right solution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Wyden has been a strong voice advocating for rural specific health care policies here in the United States Senate. I am proud to join him as we fight to ensure Medicare patients living in rural and frontier states have access to and choice of mental health professionals. The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would permit Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Professional Counselors to bill Medicare directly for services. These providers would receive 75 percent of the psychiatrist and psychologist rate for the same services. I want my colleagues to know that this legislation does not expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare patients living in isolated, frontier States like Wyoming more mental health provider choices. Today, approximately 75 percent of the over 3,000 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area. Wyoming has approximately 215 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 418 clinical social workers for a total of 670 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would almost double the number of mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State--with the addition of 659 licensed professional counselors and 83 marriage and family therapists currently licensed to practice. Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel long distances to see mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. To make matters worse, rural and frontier communities have extreme difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a Licensed Professional Counselor or a Marriage and Family Therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--only compounds the situation because psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists are the only providers able to bill Medicare for mental health services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. They play a critical role in the Nation's mental health care delivery system. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of a masters level social worker, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. I believe this bill is critically important to the health and well- being of our nation's seniors, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Wyden has been a strong voice advocating for rural specific health care policies here in the United States Senate. I am proud to join him as we fight to ensure Medicare patients living in rural and frontier states have access to and choice of mental health professionals. The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would permit Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Professional Counselors to bill Medicare directly for services. These providers would receive 75 percent of the psychiatrist and psychologist rate for the same services. I want my colleagues to know that this legislation does not expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare patients living in isolated, frontier States like Wyoming more mental health provider choices. Today, approximately 75 percent of the over 3,000 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area. Wyoming has approximately 215 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 418 clinical social workers for a total of 670 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would almost double the number of mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State--with the addition of 659 licensed professional counselors and 83 marriage and family therapists currently licensed to practice. Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel long distances to see mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. To make matters worse, rural and frontier communities have extreme difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a Licensed Professional Counselor or a Marriage and Family Therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--only compounds the situation because psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists are the only providers able to bill Medicare for mental health services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. They play a critical role in the Nation's mental health care delivery system. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of a masters level social worker, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. I believe this bill is critically important to the health and well- being of our nation's seniors, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, we are just about 1 year to the day from the day the President signed into law the health care law that is going to have an impact on all the people of this country. Here we are, 1 year later and we know a lot more about this law and people all around the country know a lot more about this law. I spent part of the weekend visiting folks in Buffalo, WY, attending the Buffalo health fair. A health fair is a place in the community where people get together and get their blood tested ahead of time. It is very inexpensive. It is based on prevention and early detection-- issues this health care law was supposed to address but has failed miserably at. At the health fair, I talked to people who were getting their blood results back, checking their cholesterol, checking their blood sugars to see about diabetes, checking their thyroid levels, and as these people were getting their blood tested--and many people, probably half the population of Buffalo, turned out to have their blood tested--they started asking me questions about the health care law, the kind of questions any American would be concerned about: Am I going to lose my freedoms? Am I still going to be able to keep my doctor? Will it truly get the cost of care down? Regrettably, this health care law, now 1 year since it has been signed, turns out to actually be bad for patients, bad for providers-- the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers, the people left footing the bill because we know a lot more now, 1 year after the law was passed, than we did when it was passed. People remember this as the law that was crammed through the Senate in the dead of night, written behind closed doors, and all the unseemly bargains that were cut to convince Senators to vote for it, getting by on the barest number of votes. There were things such as the cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase--the sort of things that offended people all across this country. So people are upset with this health care law, No. 1, in the way it was passed: In spite of the fact the President promised it would be seen on C-SPAN, all the discussions were held behind closed doors and despite the fact that many Americans never had a chance to read this 2,700-page law. When the President made his initial speech about what he was aiming to accomplish in health care reform, I said that would be great. I am an orthopedic surgeon, practiced medicine for 25 years, and I think we need to do the sorts of things the President initially addressed. Unfortunately, the health care law went in the opposite direction. When people worked their way through the 2,700-page bill, they found that instead of lowering the cost of care, the cost of their care was going to go up; instead of allowing people to keep the doctor they wanted, they were going to, unfortunately, have to change that situation. That is why I have been coming to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about this health care law. So here we are, 1 year later. We know the cost of health care is going up. The President said health care premiums would be lower for families by $2,500. No family has seen that--or none that I know of; certainly none I have talked to in Wyoming, not one. Instead, people have seen the cost of their health insurance going up, not down. The President said he was never going to raise taxes. It turns out, in fact, there are a lot of tax increases as part of this health care law. Even the 1099 form Senator Johanns has championed on the part of small businesses around the country, the efforts to remove these onerous obligations on our small businesses, have nothing to do with health care. That got crammed into this bill in the dead of night so those who support the bill can claim it was going to lower the cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office admits costs are going up, not down, and this is absolutely impacting jobs. The President promised there would be efforts for small businesses to have some advantages and some tax credits and some help, but what we found out is that if you have a small business with 10 employees and that number climbs to 11, you are going to lose some of those benefits. If you are paying your employees an average of over $25,000 a year and you want to give them a raise, you start losing some of the benefits. So in spite of the fact the President had 4 million postcards sent out to small business owners, very few of them have been able to take advantage of what was promised to them. Now here we are where additional waivers are being given. We are at a point where over 2.5 million Americans have been given waivers from participating in the health care law. Interestingly enough, these are the very people, for the most part--a significant number--who lobbied for the bill. Once they found out what was in it, they said no, I don't want this to apply to me. Now we see that the State of Maine, the entire State of Maine, has been given a waiver. I come to the floor today, a year after this has passed into law, and I say everybody in the country ought to be able to get a waiver and opt out of this health care law, opt out completely. These are decisions that should be made at the State level, at the local level. Washington's ``one size fits all'' has hardly ever worked for anything and it surely does not work for health care. In Wyoming, at the Wyoming Health Fair in Buffalo, as I visited with people and talked to them, do you know what they are worried about? They are worried about losing their freedoms, losing their choice, losing their doctor, losing the health care plan they like. In spite of the President's promises, we know that about 80 percent of people who get their health insurance through small businesses are not going to be able to keep the health care they like. Why? Because of government mandates. Government has said we know what is best for you. You do not, we do. The government says: We know what is best for your family. Government doesn't know what is best. These ought to be local decisions. That is why Senator Lindsey Graham and I and a number of other cosponsors have introduced legislation to allow States to opt out of this health care law, opt out of the individual mandate, the requirement that forces Americans to buy government-approved insurance. Let States make that decision if people in their own State need to live under those laws. Let States decide if the employers, the people who are the job creators in our communities, if they have to supply government-approved insurance to the people who live there. Let people make decisions at the local level. You can lift any newspaper and look at what the Medicaid mandates are doing to our States and the budgets of the States. States such as Wyoming, where we balance our budgets every year and live within our means, are being crushed by these Medicaid mandates. But it is not just small States such as Wyoming, in terms of population--California, New York, States all across the country are saying to this body: Let us out, let us opt out. We cannot live under these mandates. The President's solution is to cram more people onto Medicaid, a program that doesn't work, where many doctors will not see these patients, where the reimbursements are so low hospitals say we cannot afford to see these patients because of the impact it will have. Even the actuaries, the people who look at this in the fair and appropriate way to look at the numbers, say 15 percent of the hospitals in this country 10 years from now may not be able to be open because of the way this health care law is going. That is not going to provide more access. It is providing less access. Why have seniors rejected this so overwhelmingly? Seniors have looked at this and they see $500 billion in Medicare cuts, in things such as Medicare Advantage. There is an advantage to being in that program. That is why one out of four seniors has set up that program and chosen that program. It is because they want choice. This health care law is one that is taking choice out of the hands of the American families, taking freedom out of the hands of the American families. Something I continue to hear from the people in Wyoming and across the country: We need to repeal and replace with commonsense solutions to allow people to buy insurance across State lines, make it legal to do that; to allow small businesses to pool their resources; to give incentives to individuals who go to something like the Wyoming Health Fair; and work on prevention and early detection of problems. Give those people the opportunity to make individual choices. Expand health savings accounts. Those are the sorts of things we can deal with in a responsible way to help American families get the care they want from the doctor they need at a price they can afford. That is all the American people are asking for: the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford. They are not getting it under this health care law. It has now been enacted for a full year. The American people know the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the McConnell amendment, in favor of the McConnell amendment. Gas prices have increased 43 cents in the last month, and 77 cents a gallon over the last year. These skyrocketing prices are hurting American families, and are threatening to derail the economic recovery. You say, how much is this impact on the American family? Well, the Department of Energy says the average American family will spend about $700 more on gas this year than they did last year. That is going to impact every family, every family trying to deal with bills and kids and a mortgage. It is not as if this problem happened overnight. For over 2 years, Americans have heard the President deliver speeches and make promises on energy. But the President says one thing and then he does another. That ``say one thing, do another'' policy does nothing to ease the pain at the pump. The administration's policies are making the problems today worse. The President's reckless policies have virtually shut down offshore exploration for oil. Last week, former President Bill Clinton called the delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits ridiculous. Offshore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to drop 15 percent this calendar year. What that means is higher gas prices and fewer American jobs. The administration actually told Congress we can replace the loss of American oil from the Gulf of Mexico with more oil from OPEC. That is exactly what this administration told Congress in October. In justifying more restrictive offshore drilling rules, the administration admitted this would lead to lower production of American oil. The administration wrote: The impact on domestic deepwater hydrocarbon production as a result of these regulations is expected to be negative. Then the administration went on to say: Currently there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC to offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deepwater production that could occur as a result of this rule. That is this administration's mindset: Don't worry about domestic production. OPEC has us covered. The administration's shutdown of American exploration is not the only problem. The administration is also aggressively implementing Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will drive up the cost of energy. The EPA's climate change regulations under the Clean Air Act will cause gas prices for every American to go up even more. That is why I am here today. The McConnell amendment will fix this problem. Senator Inhofe originally introduced the legislation in the Senate. It was introduced in conjunction with a bill in the House by Representative Fred Upton. This legislation will stop the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory overreach that is going to increase gas prices. When Congress refused to pass the President's cap-and-trade scheme last year, the administration turned to plan B--the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. The theory behind it is that additional restrictions on carbon-based energy and higher costs for gasoline are needed to make green energy more competitive. The key word is ``competitive,'' not actually making green energy more affordable, just more competitive, not by driving down the cost of green energy but by driving up the cost of red, white, and blue American energy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has even said publicly: ``We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' The price in Europe is $8 a gallon. Under this cover of creating green jobs, EPA regulations are increasing the cost of red, white, and blue energy. This administration is trying to achieve its goals, the same goals as cap and tax, by placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and gasoline production. One of the ways the EPA will use the Clean Air Act is to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from America's oil refineries. We have not had a new oil refinery built in this country since 1976. The EPA's climate regulations will make it even more difficult and more costly to build and operate refineries. The result, of course, is higher gas prices at the pump and a greater reliance on imported gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency's climate regulations must be stopped. They are arbitrary; they are costly; they are destructive; and they are politically driven. The EPA's climate rules are just one tool to make gasoline prices go up. But this administration is proposing dozens more. I have introduced legislation similar to the McConnell amendment and the Inhofe bill. But my bill is more comprehensive. My bill, S. 228, is called the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. It will block the same manipulation of laws to increase the future cost of gasoline for all Americans. My legislation, which has the support of 20 Senators, would block the manipulation and misuse of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of citizen lawsuits. I am trying to stop this administration from placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and other forms of affordable energy. The Environmental Species Act is currently being used to remove 187,000 square miles of land from energy exploration. A decision of this magnitude will drastically limit oil and gas development and exploration. They do this all in the name of climate change. When the administration blocks production of American oil used to make gasoline, American families pay higher prices at the pump. They pay higher prices today, and the prices will remain high in the future. I plan to continue to fight the many ways this administration is trying to enact cap-and-tax policies and raise gas prices. The President says he wants renewable energy to be the cheapest form of energy. He needs to level with the American people. He needs to admit his scheme is to raise the cost of all other forms of energy and make the American people pay the bill. We should be exploring for more American energy offshore, on Federal lands, and in Alaska. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment so we can block the administration's costly regulations and protect the pocketbooks of American families. The President's policies are making the pain at the pump even worse. It is time to stop these policies today with the McConnell amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor, as I do every week, as a physician who has practiced medicine and taken care of families in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. County commissioners from around the State of Wyoming are coming to town today for their annual meeting. It was 1 year ago today, at their annual meeting, when Nancy Pelosi--then-Speaker of the House--addressed that group and said: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. That quote has been repeated again and again and again, and people now know what is in this health care law. People have found out. Every month since this law has been passed, people have found out additional things about the health care law they absolutely do not like. Now that the American people know what is in the bill, and they know they don't like it, let's get to the fundamentals of what the American people have asked for. When they asked for a change in health care in this country, they said they wanted the care they need from the doctor at a price they can afford. The new law fails that test, and it fails miserably. It has only taken 1 year to break almost every promise the President made when he addressed the Congress and the country. So what I would like to do now is take a look, month by month, at how those promises were broken. I will start with March, since it is now March and this started with Nancy Pelosi's statement in March of 2010. One year ago, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated the law to see how much it would actually cost. They told us the law could only reduce the deficit if it did something about the long-term insolvency of Medicare. Instead, the Democrats and the President proposed and adopted and signed into law cuts of over $500 billion from Medicare. This was not to save Medicare but to start a whole new government entitlement program, a decision the CBO said would increase the deficit by $260 billion. Let's go to April. In April, we learned the costs for those Medicare cuts go way beyond dollars and cents. An analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services found these cuts could drive up to 15 percent of hospitals out of business. For this administration, the shortage of hospitals apparently takes a backseat to the shortage of Washington bureaucrats. Let us go to May. In May, we learned over 200,000 Americans with preexisting conditions and expensive health insurance would not be eligible to enroll in the new high-risk pools created in the health care law; that is, of course, unless they were willing to completely drop the insurance they had and wait, without insurance--wait without insurance--for 6 months. Only then would they qualify for what was in the health care law. For many people with preexisting conditions, who were paying higher premiums, they felt that would be irresponsible behavior; that it would be risky, put them at financial risk. But that is what this administration and this government was proposing. In June, after the administration sent over 4 million postcards to small businesses--you remember the postcards, the ones claiming those small businesses would be eligible for a tax credit--the Associated Press blew the whistle. It turned out the only small businesses that were fully eligible for these tax credits had to employ fewer than 25 people. So to be eligible at all, they had to have fewer than 25 people. Moreover, the Associated Press reported the tax credit drops off sharply if the company employs any more than 10 people or if the annual salary was averaging more than $25,000. So if you had 10 employees and paid them, on average, $25,000, you could get the tax credit. But once you went to that 11th employee and gave someone a raise, you started to lose the attribute the administration said was so valuable. That was in June. In July, the Obama administration's own Justice Department confirmed the individual mandate penalty is a tax increase. Well, when ABC News's George Stephanopoulos asked the President if the mandate penalty was a tax increase, the President said: ``I absolutely reject that notion.'' Well, if the President absolutely rejects the notion, why is his own Justice Department contradicting him? In August, without so much as a hearing before Congress, the President made a recess appointment. He tapped Dr. Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. So how big is this Federal agency? Well, it includes oversight of a budget larger than the Pentagon's. Dr. Berwick believes the government must ration health care and that the only issue is whether we ration with our eyes wide open, as he said. Well, the President promised not to ration care, so why did he make an appointment of someone who believes it is inevitable to ration care and do it in a way without ever allowing the Senate-- Republicans and Democrats alike, Members of this body--to even have a hearing so this individual could explain his position, explain his previous comments, explain what he has said and written? The President refused and did a recess appointment of someone who never testified, never came to a confirmation hearing, and he put him in charge of a program with a budget larger than the Pentagon's. Can you imagine if the Secretary of Defense was made as a recess appointment without a congressional hearing? It is unthinkable. In September, the administration released new rules estimating that 80 percent of small businesses would be forced to change the coverage of insurance they offer to their employees. These aren't my numbers, these are the administration's own numbers. But it was the President who said, over and over, if you like the coverage you have today, then you can keep it. Now we know that was another one of the President's empty promises. In October, responding to complaints from unions and corporations, the Obama administration began handing out waivers--waivers that excused individual groups from ObamaCare's expensive mandates. These waivers went mostly to those politically connected to this administration. Most American families still have to bear the law's expensive burdens. Clearly, for this administration, playing favorites is more important than achieving fairness. I think every American ought to be able to get a waiver from this health care law. In November, a majority of the American people voiced their opposition to this law and handed an election response that resulted in a significant change in the composition of the House and the Senate because the American people knew they did not want this health care law. The American people were concerned--and they even wondered if this law was constitutional--and in December, a Federal judge in Virginia ruled it was unconstitutional to force Americans to buy a product. The Service Employees International Union, one of the biggest unions in the country, also admitted in December that fulfilling the requirements of ObamaCare would be financially impossible. This is the same law they said the country needed when they lobbied in favor of it. In January of this year, the Medicare Actuary called the administration's claim the health care law would bring down costs ``false more than true.'' Also, a Federal judge in Florida struck down the entire law as unconstitutional. In February--last month--we learned the 2012 budget the IRS submitted to Congress specifically mentions the health care law 250 times. They mention it as a source of authority and funding for new powers. They called the health care law ``the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years.'' To begin implementing these changes will require thousands of new Washington bureaucrats. Well, that was through February, and here we are, on March 9. Did the American people find out anything new about the health care law in March? Absolutely. Last Friday night, the Secretary of Health and Human Services granted another 150 waivers--another 150 waivers. Now there are over 1,040 waivers covering 2.6 million individuals. These are people who don't want to live under the Obama health care law. They don't want it to apply to them. I think every American ought to have a right to that same waiver. Of those 2.6 million people who received waivers, 1.2 million are members of unions. So that is 46 percent of the waivers have been given to union members. If you look at the Web site you must go to for that information, the Secretary has tried to disguise how they label these individuals, and so union plans are now called ``multiemployer plans.'' Under this change in the name, at the Web site you go to learn about this, are the words ``promoting transparency.'' So we have an administration that says one thing but does another. But the American people now know what is in the law. As they were studying the law before the vote, they didn't want it. Now they know all about it, and they still don't want it. It is clear it is unsustainable, unaffordable, and unconstitutional. It is time to repeal and replace it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to discuss an issue that is critically facing the American people: It is the price of gasoline at the pump. It is something that, in my opinion, will impact our economy, impact the economic recovery we are all hoping will continue in this country. But with every penny the cost of gasoline goes up, it has been estimated it takes about a billion dollars away from the amount of money that can be spent on other things in this country and to growing the economy. We are at a point where the American people, who have to balance their budgets every year--and States have to do it, of course. Washington doesn't do that, but the American people do. They have to focus on their pocketbooks. When they are going to fill up with gas at the pump and are noticing that they are approaching a point where it is going to be $100 to get a fill-up, they worry about the impact on the quality of their life, their ability to put food on the table for their children, and clothing on their children, and even have the money to get back and forth to work--those fortunate enough to have jobs. One can say: Well, is it really a problem? I believe it is. I filled up yesterday morning in Casper. A young man in front of me at the filling station was filling up his pickup truck. He was watching the numbers go up and up. I filled up a week ago in Wyoming as well. We use a lot of gasoline in Wyoming. We travel long distances. I was filling up in the evening. I put my credit card in, and it stopped at $75 because apparently they have to reset these pumps. One would think that with $75 one would have enough money to fill up. But not as these gas prices continue to rise. My concern is that so much of this money is being sent overseas to people who are trying to blow us up. We have an opportunity to be much more secure in our energy resources by developing our energy resources at home. It just seems that this administration's policies are making it that much harder. One may say: How high can gasoline prices go? With the unrest in the Middle East, a front-page story a few days ago in USA TODAY said: ``If unrest spreads, gas may hit $5 a gallon''--$5 a gallon by summer. We need to do some things in this country that this administration has continued to block. We need to find more of our own energy, be reliant more on ourselves and less on foreign sources of energy. That means doing three things: exploring offshore, exploring on Federal land, and exploring in Alaska. We know there are huge reserves of oil, of energy in those locations. Yet day by day those efforts are being blocked. The impact on our overall economy is huge, and it is because of policies of this administration. USA TODAY this morning: ``Will gas prices stall U.S. upturn? Consumers could cut spending again.'' It is not in the best interest of this country for us to have energy policies that make it more expensive for Americans to gas up their cars. It does not help the economy of this country when the policies of this administration do things that make it more expensive and harder for small businesses to create jobs and hire people. We are trying to get people hired, back to work. That is what we need to focus on--jobs and the economy. When the administration's policies cut into our ability to use energy sources from within this country--red, white, and blue energy jobs; red, white, and blue energy as well--and just send more money overseas, that does not help us as a nation, it does not help our economy, and it does not help strengthen our communities. We are so blessed in this country with wonderful families, wonderful communities, and wonderful land. Yet we do not seem to be making wise decisions on a daily basis with the policies coming out of this administration. It is interesting to see who is actually benefiting from these increased costs because we know American families are not benefiting, we know American taxpayers are not benefiting, and we know people trying to get their kids off to school are not benefiting. Who is benefiting from this huge increase in the cost of energy and the cost of oil? All we need to do is go to the front page of the business section of today's New York Times: ``Fears About Mideast Oil Pay Off for Russia.'' For Russia, Mr. President. ``Whatever the eventual outcome of the Arab world's social upheaval, there is a clear economic winner so far: Vladimir V. Putin.'' Right there, that is the winner. The economic policies of this administration to limit our ability and curtail our ability to use American energy, American oil, to keep down the cost of gasoline, are benefiting Russia. It says: Russia, which pumps more oil than Saudi Arabia, is reaping a windfall from the steep rise in global energy prices resulting from instability in oil regions of the Middle East and North Africa . . . Russia does not have any oil wells standing idle . . . Right now Russia is pumping oil at its top capacity. In a country where we and this Congress in particular choose winners and losers in energy, the winner seems to be Russia because of the policies of this administration. The Hill newspaper this morning said: ``Pump pain for Obama.'' This clearly lies specifically at the feet of the President because of the policies of this administration. We have had a situation in the Gulf of Mexico where there has been a moratorium, which is extended almost permanently, shutting down the use of oil reserves for the United States. The administration--so happy, and pronounced the moratorium--has not until this week allowed for an additional permit and finally one when the price of gasoline went up at the pump 38 cents on average, about $3.50 per gallon. The Department of Interior, last October in the Federal Register, had a solution. They had some ideas about this because the Department of the Interior admitted--the President's own Secretary and his Department of Interior admitted that what they were doing in the Gulf of Mexico would have an impact. It says: The impact on the domestic deepwater hydrocarbon production as a result of these regulations is expected to be negative. What it means is that it is going to cut down on American sources of energy. We need energy security. We as a nation need to do it in an environmentally responsible way, and we need to focus on economic growth. This administration does not seem to be willing to make that distinction about energy security and economic growth and the needs we have to help make our economy stronger. What is the administration's position? What, as of October of last year, was their position on all of this to say: OK, we know we are going to have impacts in the gulf. They didn't say: Oh, I know, we can go onshore and look on Federal land. They didn't say: Let's go to Alaska to explore. This is this administration's position. They said: Currently, there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC-- In OPEC, in the Middle East-- to offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deepwater production that could occur as a result of this rule. The rule that they are going to shut down the gulf. Therefore, the increase in the price of hydrocarbon products to consumers from the increased cost to drill and operate on the Outer Continental Shelf is expected to be minimal. That is the administration's solution. They do not expect anything to happen. They are not worried about it. And if there is a problem, just buy more oil from OPEC, send more American dollars overseas. That is the administration's position? And what about the impact on our economy? We do have a Secretary of Energy. One would think he would be concerned about the cost of energy and the impact on American families. Not so when we look at some of the statements he has made. In the past, he said: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe. That is the proposal of the Secretary of Energy--figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. How much does gasoline cost in Europe? Almost $8 a gallon. The President, when he was a Senator and running for President, did not seem to think high energy prices were a problem. He just wanted the price to go up gradually. He said the problem is when things go up too quickly. The American people who try to put bread on the table for their kids, clothing on their backs, get them off to school, and then go to work themselves, notice this. They know every time the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes up by a penny or a nickel or 38 cents, as it has most recently, the economy will suffer as a result. It is specifically a result of the policies of this administration, the policies that ignore the need for American energy. At a time when we need to be focused on jobs, that we need to realize the amount of uncertainty in the Middle East, there is now sticker shock at the pumps, and it is the policies of this administration that are keeping us from developing the energy security we need. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming, taken care of families there for a quarter of a century, working with people all across our great State, as a physician who has also served in our State senate. Both in my practice, as well as in my service in the State senate, I have dealt with the issue of Medicaid, a program that was set up to help low-income Americans obtain health care. So I came today with a doctor's second opinion about recent developments and findings with regard to the health care law because, day after day, we see news reports showing States all across the country facing extreme financial budget pressures, even bankruptcy. One of the key factors exacerbating State fiscal troubles is the Medicaid Program. Over the next 10 years, Washington will spend about $4.4 trillion on Medicaid. At the State level, Medicaid spending now consumes roughly one-quarter of the budgets of each of the States. Increases in Medicaid costs often force Governors and State legislators to make drastic cuts to local priorities, such as education, law enforcement, public safety. As I mentioned, I did serve in the Wyoming State Legislature--5 years in the Wyoming State Senate-- and was there last week to address the legislatures, the Wyoming State Senate and House, to talk with them, listen to them about their concerns. In the State of Wyoming, we are required, on an annual basis, to balance our budget. We do it every year. So I know from a firsthand experience that tough choices need to be made. That is why I can tell you this current health care law, President Obama's health care law, is not going to make it any easier for our States to close the budget gaps they are facing, and, as a matter of fact, it is going to make the situation worse. The President's health care law created the biggest Medicaid expansion in history. The law says every State must provide Medicaid for every one of their citizens who earns up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty limit. This does not work for the States, and it does not work for the people who will be forced onto Medicaid. The health care law does not provide additional resources to States that are already strapped for cash in order to try to deal with paying for this incredible expansion of Medicaid, and it certainly does not give States additional financial help so they can pay health care providers enough to participate in Medicaid--because about 40 percent of physicians across the country refuse to see Medicaid patients. My partners and I took care of everyone in Wyoming who would call or come to our office, regardless of ability to pay, but across the country about 40 percent of physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients. So I have said, over and over throughout this health care reform debate over the last year or so, that having a health care government insurance card does not mean someone will automatically have access to medical care. The President frequently talks about making sure people have coverage, but that does not necessarily mean they will have access to care. So I wish to be very clear. The States, especially my home State of Wyoming, do an incredible job of running the Medicaid programs. They do it with limited resources. But a weak economy, combined with a high unemployment rate, drove Medicaid enrollment to record levels. So it is not a surprise that Medicaid is quickly consuming greater and greater portions of State budgets, cutting into money that is being used to pay for teachers, for police, and for firefighters. Former Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said it best when he called the health care law's Medicaid expansion ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Governor Bredesen went on to say that ``Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage.'' Let me repeat that. Medicaid, which the President has used as the approach to expand coverage, the Governor, the Democratic Governor, says Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. He want to say: It's a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. It's not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid. Well, the former Governor of Tennessee is not alone. On November 9, 2010, Governor Brian Schweitzer, of my neighboring State of Montana, also a Democrat, met with his State's health industry leaders to talk about Medicaid, the challenges they are facing. What he said was: ``As the manager of Montana's budget, I am worried because there are only three states that will increase the number of people on Medicaid at a faster rate than Montana, thanks to the new health care bill.'' He said: ``My job is to try and find ways to go forward that Montana can continue to fund Medicaid and not be like 48 other States . . . broke.'' So, in January, 33 Governors and Governors-elect sent a letter to President Obama, to Congressional leadership, and to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius. What did they say? Well, the letter asks Federal lawmakers to lift the constraints placed on them by the health care law's mandates. The Governors are begging Congress for help. They each have very unique Medicaid Programs across the country, the different States, and they want, they asked, they need the flexibility to manage their programs, their individual programs as effectively and efficiently as possible. Well, they all need to make tough but necessary budget decisions, and they cannot do it when Washington bureaucrats and the enduring wisdom of those in Washington will not allow it. You want to add insult to injury? This week, the President claimed, as he was addressing Governors at the National Governors Association, that the health care law offers States flexibility to create their own health care plans. This was Monday in an address to the National Governors Association. The President made an announcement. He announced: ``If your state can create a plan that covers as many people as affordably and comprehensively as the Affordable Care Act does--without increasing the deficit--you can implement that plan.'' Well, that is quite a tall and almost impossible order. The American people and certainly the Governors who were listening to him in the audience on Monday saw right through the President's PR stunt. The President's plan requires States to create health care plans that imitate his health care law, rather than actually offering States true freedom to innovate better solutions. There are better solutions out there than what this body and the House of Representatives passed and the President signed into law almost 1 year ago. It seems to me the President wants to have his cake and eat it too. He tells the States they already have the ability to craft a different health care plan, but, of course, there is a catch. What the President does not say, what he would not tell the Governors, is that States can only design different health care plans if--if, and only if--they meet the health care law's litany of Washington mandates. States still must pass legislation mandating all its citizens buy health insurance. States must still provide Washington-approved insurance coverage--Washington levels, Washington approved--limiting use of innovative health care products such as health savings accounts. Oh, no, that is not allowed by the President. States are still locked into the law's Medicaid expansion spending requirements. During these tough economic times, the States need certainty, they need consistency, not more Washington doublespeak. Last month, I introduced, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, a bill giving the States exactly what they need: flexibility, freedom, and choice. The bill is called the State Health Care Choice Act. This legislation is simple, it is straightforward, and it protects States rights by allowing them to voluntarily opt out of portions of the health care law. Specifically, our bill offers States the chance to opt out of the law's individual mandate, to opt out of the law's employer mandate and penalties, to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and to opt out of the insurance benefit mandates. Why should the Federal Government, why should Washington, force the States to adopt a one-size-fits-all health care plan? States can decide what works best for them. They need to be able to act on those decisions. They do not need Washington to tell them what to do. Well, some of the most innovative health care policy ideas truly do originate at the State and local levels. Governors, State legislators, State insurance commissioners, each have much greater insight into what works for their citizens and what does not. States are feeling trapped by the new health care law's mandates. My bill, the one along with Senator Graham, gives the States the sovereignty to pursue their own reform ideas and approaches. Each State deserves the right--let me repeat that: each State deserves the right--to pursue health care reforms they think actually help the citizens of their State. The States have always been the laboratories of democracy, the laboratories to test good ideas. Unfortunately, this health care law locks them into a one-size-fits-all approach. The States want their freedom. The States deserve their freedom. Our bill gives it to them, offering the flexibility needed to generate better health care reform solutions, solutions that do not require the States to follow a Washington plan that may ultimately leave them broke. In writing the State Health Care Choice Act, I started with the assumption that people generally can be trusted to do the right thing, and society prospers when government has less to say about how people run their lives. Others, many in this body, start by assuming Washington knows best and should take more authority over everyone else. Well, the States, the American people are telling us they want health care reform. But they are telling us loudly and clearly that they do not want this health care law. So it is time to give the States the autonomy to create health care systems that work best for them, and we do not have to dismantle the Nation's current health care system, build it up in the image of big government, shift costs to the States, add billions to our national debt, and then try to sell it as reform. There are better ideas, and I have put forward mine. I ask all Senators to join me in cosponsoring the State Health Care Choice Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today because, on Monday, President Obama introduced his new budget. What we saw in that budget is, for the most part, more of the same--more spending, more taxes, more borrowing. We see this budget from a President who doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the Nation's fiscal crisis. When we start digging down into the budget the President proposed and look into the Internal Revenue Service component of that budget, what we see is the Internal Revenue Service is starting to focus in and audit ObamaCare. There is a glaring difference in the budget this year from previous years because of the President's new health spending law. The IRS now has unprecedented power over health care in America. In fact, when we take a look at this budget, and specifically the Internal Revenue Service's fiscal year 2012 budget request, over 250 times the Affordable Care Act--known in the budget as the ACA but known by people all across the country as ObamaCare--is mentioned. Over 250 times. To me, the goal of the health care law has been to let people all across this country get the care they need from the doctors they want at a price they can afford. As a member of my party, looking at our economy, looking at the deficit, looking at the incredible debt, what I think we need to do is make it cheaper and easier to create private sector jobs in this country. That is the way we get the economy going again. But when I read this budget, and specifically IRS requests, it seems to me it is making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in our country. The people of this country are not taxed too little. The problem is that the government spends too much. When I take a look at this budget, that is exactly what I see being rejected by this administration because it seems this administration is more interested in taxing, in raising taxes, rather than cutting spending. When you take a look at what the IRS says in the budget, it says: The implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service. This is the IRS talking about the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people in the middle of the night, written behind closed doors. We are all familiar with it. Now it is presenting a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service goes on to say: This law represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the budget gives the IRS the ability to hire 5,000 new workers. After taking a close look at the IRS's plans, we know they will have to hire over 1,000 new IRS bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats, to implement ObamaCare measures. What are some of those that we are now going to have IRS agents coming and looking into? One is the tanning tax, the component that promotes compliance with the new excise tax on tanning facilities. The IRS is requesting another $1.5 million and requesting 81 more full-time equivalents to go ahead and implement this tanning tax. For oversight--they call it ``strengthen oversight of exempt hospitals.'' These are tax-exempt hospitals, hospitals that do not pay taxes, but to do an oversight of these hospitals, they want another $9.9 million and another 84 full-time employees. For the new health coverage information reporting, they want $34 million and 100 full-time employees. For something I call ObamaCare 101--assisting taxpayers in understanding the new provisions--the IRS is requesting $22.2 million and hiring another 150 full-time equivalents. And then, of course, for the call centers, IRS call centers--so if someone has a question, they can call and ask a question--they want another $15 million because of the complexity of this new health care law that is going to be difficult for people to understand. The American people and small business owners--and those are the job creators of this country--want the IRS to make their lives easier, not tougher, not audit their health care choices and health care decisions. But adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of new dollars to the IRS is not going to make health care better. It is not going to make care more available for anyone. I am going to continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion to fight to repeal and replace this health care law and to do it with patient-centered reforms that help the private sector, not the IRS, create more jobs. This morning, we had a little event called Wyoming Wednesdays where people from Wyoming who are here come together in Senator Enzi's office, and we have coffee and doughnuts and visit. One of the people here from Wyoming said: I saw a sign that was worrisome. I said: What is the sign? He said that this location where they are putting in offices used to be a parking lot. When you are replacing a parking lot with more offices for more Washington bureaucrats, that is not a good sign for the rest of America. Here we have the IRS saying they are dealing with a major challenge because of the health care law. It represents the largest tax law change in more than 20 years. More than 40 provisions are being amended in the tax law to go after things. They want this kind of money to implement the tax changes with regard to the indoor tanning services-- 81 new full-time equivalents--and they say what is involved in this. The IRS says there are as many as 25,000 businesses that provide indoor tanning services they are now going to tax, including about 10,000 businesses that offer tanning services along with other services such as spas, health clubs, and beauty salons. We are here in the Senate, in Congress, with 9 percent unemployment in this country, with people looking for work, and more government jobs are being created, and these people are creating government jobs to make it harder on small businesses. It gets right to the crux of it right here because the IRS even says these entities, all these tanning entities, typically do not have experience filing Federal excise tax returns. So what is the government going to do? Come in, make them file claims and forms they do not have experience with. It is going to be costly; it is going to take time; it is going to increase taxes. That is not a way to create new jobs. They want 10 million more dollars to strengthen oversight on tax- exempt hospitals. These are tax-exempt hospitals. Why are the American taxpayers being asked to pay another $10 million to hire 84 full-time equivalents to deal with tax-exempt hospitals? Because, according to the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people, the IRS is now required to review at least every 3 years the benefit activities of tax-exempt hospital organizations, which number about 5,100 in this country. They actually say in the budget request by the IRS, as part of the President's budget that was submitted on Monday: These are new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals which include a majority of hospitals in the United States. We are going to increase taxpayer dollars going for more IRS auditors and make it harder and more burdensome on the tax-exempt hospitals in terms of paperwork and what they need to do. It goes on and on. That is why the American people are fed up with what is happening in Washington. Let's talk a little bit about the CLASS Act because there is a whole component of the budget wanting 30 staff members added to the health department office overseeing implementation of what is called the CLASS Act. That stands for community living assistance services and supports. The President's own debt commission--remember, the President appointed this commission about a year ago to say: Let's look into the debt. People thought that was a bold move, a bipartisan move, a lot of people coming together to take a look at this debt. For a year, the President said: We have a debt commission looking into this, so he did not deal with the debt. Now that the debt commission came out with its report in December, the President has mostly ignored it. Yet the debt commission--it was bipartisan, chaired by Erskine Bowles, a former Chief of Staff of the White House for Bill Clinton, and Al Simpson, a former Senator from my State of Wyoming--came out, took a look at the health care law, and specifically honed in on this CLASS Act. One of the Members of this Senate, a colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, someone who voted for the health care law, called it a Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of. The President's budget commission, the bipartisan budget commission, looked at it, and they have significant concerns about the sustainability of the program and called for the program to either be repealed or reformed because it is not sustainable. They have raised concerns. People on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns. Yet the Secretary of Health and Human Services has, in her budget, money for 30 additional staff members added to the health department offices. Why? To go over the details of this act that people say ought to be repealed because, as it says, the details of the CLASS Act--they want to spend $93.5 million informing and educating people about the CLASS Act. I can tell them right now it is unsustainable, it is irresponsible, and it is something that should be repealed. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services wants to spend over $93 million of taxpayer money to inform and educate the public about this component of the health care law that people on both sides of the aisle think needs to go away. Finally, as someone who believes this health care law is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers--what we saw in the President's budget that came out Monday, coming out for next year, is it is asking for over 1,000 new IRS agents to go ahead and implement the various components and responsibilities that have been put on their heads by this health care law. This is only the beginning. The entire health care law does not really come fully into play until 2014. That is when Americans are going to have more IRS agents, more money being spent looking into their own personal lives, looking into what kind of insurance they have. Is it acceptable to the government? Is it government approved? That is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation called the State Health Care Choice Act, to let States decide. Let States decide if Washington ought to be telling the people in their States that they must buy, that every individual must buy government-approved insurance. Let the States make that decision. Let the States opt out if they would like. Let the States decide if all the businesses in their States must provide government-approved insurance to their workers. Let the States decide as to Medicaid, a program for low-income Americans which is being expanded significantly by cramming 16 million more Americans into Medicaid. Governors all across the country in a bipartisan way are saying: Our States cannot afford this. A New York Times story shows Jerry Brown from California and Andrew Cuomo from New York complaining about the mandates Medicaid is putting on their States, the additional burdens in terms of taxes and the mandates and what it is going to do to the people of the State who are trying to educate their kids and the cost and the pressure on education dollars because they are getting shifted to Medicaid, the cost of dollars shifted away from public safety, from firefighters, police officers, other public safety officers. As to this health care law, I think people at the State level ought to decide that, no, we don't want this to apply to us. That is why I come today, again as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, took care of thousands and thousands of patients and families, trying to help people get better, all in a way that now I think is being taken in the wrong direction by this health care law, and why I think we want to continue to look for ways to make sure people get the care they want from the doctors they need at a price they can afford. The health care law that was passed by this body fails in all of those respects, and now we see, with the President's budget, a request for money for another thousand IRS agents, not to help people get better, not to help people get the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford--no, not at all--but to audit the health care of the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, there are those folks around the country--and I go home to Wyoming repeatedly; I will be there again tomorrow evening--who are concerned about a $14 trillion debt this country is trying to live with, a deficit this year of $1.5 trillion. The United States, in this last year, spent $3.7 trillion and brought in $2.2 trillion. That is not sustainable. It cannot continue. We simply cannot continue at this level, where 41 cents of every dollar we spend in this country is borrowed, much of it from people overseas. It should not catch anyone by surprise today that the stimulus provisions we are talking about--the provisions from that stimulus package--are set to expire. In fact, it has been well known since the day the stimulus passed. The current financial position of the United States forces us to examine all Federal programs and make some very tough and difficult decisions. I agree the Senate should extend the prohibition on implementation of the Department of Labor's merit staffing rule which I believe is harmful and unnecessary. For these reasons, I propose an alternative package that maintains the underlying bill, H.R. 359, regarding the elimination of the taxpayer-funded Presidential election campaigns, extends the ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Act, for 18 months, and extends the merit staffing prohibition for 18 months. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 359, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this third proposal deals solely with the health coverage tax credit, including the increases contained in the stimulus that went from 65 percent to 80 percent. It is important to note that the health coverage tax credit is not going away. It is merely reverting to the previous level which will require recipients to increase their contribution for health coverage. The health coverage tax credit stimulus level of 80 percent, which represents one of the most generous health care premium subsidies provided by the Federal Government, is unsustainable. As a result, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and for the reasons I have stated during the previous request and debate, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I do look forward to having those additional discussions and debates on all the issues raised by my distinguished colleague from Ohio. That is why, after the two distinguished Senators on the floor today offer the three different proposals, I have a counterproposal that I hope they would accept, an alternative package that maintains the underlying bill H.R. 359. It extends the Andean Trade Preference Act for 18 months and extends the permanent staffing prohibition for 18 months. I will be offering that after we have finished an additional discussion by the other side.