John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, in response to my colleague from Rhode Island, despite over a $13 trillion existing debt that we cannot pay back, the Democrats are back with another proposal to add another $13 billion to the deficit, add it to the growing deficit. This one is not even a new proposal, it is a proposal that was already rejected by 50 Senators, including 11 Members from across the aisle a number of months ago. If we are going to attempt to help those seniors, as has been mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. I absolutely support helping the seniors who are having a hard time. I just propose we pay for it. That is why I offered the amendment to the proposal from the Senator from Rhode Island that would, in fact, just pay for it. It is as simple as that. I propose that instead of piling money, debt on top of our massive debt, what I have offered is an amendment that would authorize the Office of Management and Budget to cut an appropriate amount from other programs to help them find money to pay for this one.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I note on the front page of USA Today ``Jobless Data could Break '80s Record.'' Not since the early 1980s has the nation's unemployment rate been so grim for so long, a government report due Friday is likely to show. It goes on to say: The chronic level of high unemployment shows that many Americans are still suffering, even though [the government], the National Bureau of Economic Research, has said the recession officially ended in June 2009. The people in this country know what is happening in their own communities and their own States and do not need to be told different things by the government when they know the reality in which they are living. I heard from my distinguished colleague some concerns we all share about the economy and what best way to stimulate economic growth. I believe, with Members on my side of the aisle, that one of the things you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times. We are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that position. But listening to my colleague, there are now actually a growing chorus of Members from his side of the aisle who are agreeing with me, including the two newest Members of the Senate from the other side of the aisle who have come here, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the one from Delaware. The one from West Virginia, while running for the Senate, said, ``I wouldn't raise any taxes,'' referring to the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire come the end of this year. The Senator-elect and newly sworn in Senator from Delaware, in terms of tax cuts, said, ``I would extend them for everyone.'' So there is a growing chorus on the ways to give this economy and the job-creating segment of this economy some certainty so they can then make the investments, make the decisions, hire the people to try to do that. We are unanimous in our support for not raising taxes on anyone during economic times like this and, with that growing chorus, then, as a result, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have just heard from my colleague, would the Senator agree to include an amendment that has been proposed by Senator Brown that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk? Would the Senator include that amendment that has been proposed?

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are a couple ways we can help people who are currently looking for work. One is by extending unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work now 99 weeks. This is what the extension is about: for those who have already----

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. So I do object to the motion by the distinguished Senator from California. As I was saying, there are two ways to help those who are looking for work and one of which is to improve the economy. We can do that by giving some certainty--certainty--to people who provide jobs, who build businesses, who create opportunities, the job-creating sector of this country. We can do that by giving them certainty regarding what their tax rates will be come January 1. Right now there is an incredible amount of uncertainty. The second way is to deal with the unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work now 99 weeks because that is what this is about. These are people who have been collecting unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. I will tell you, there are people across the Nation having a tough time due to this poor economy. I wish to see the economy improve. The national unemployment rate in October was 9.6 percent. Today's front page of USA Today says: ``Jobless data could break '80s record''--a record from the 1980s. ``November was likely 19th month above 9 percent.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my statement was, what I do know is that 42 Republicans have signed a letter to say what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every American come January 1.

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this request just came to us moments ago. This is the first time we have seen this request, and I cannot speak to the merits of this bill or the problems that may exist. What I do know is that 42 Senators from this side of the aisle have signed a letter to say that what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every American come January 1. Mr. President, some of these requests may have bipartisan support, but we don't know anything about the specific legislation as we have just received this request. I think almost every bill in this package of requests that we are going to be considering now is still in committee, so we don't even know if the ranking member of that committee has concerns or potential changes. This is not the way to handle this. This is December; it is a lameduck session. Let's stop the theater and get to the business we all know we need to address. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915, something we have been discussing the last week, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk, a fully offset repeal of section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Small Business 1099 paperwork mandate, be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Michigan because this was brought to the floor previously but with a threshold of 67 votes, and there were two different approaches to trying to help the small businesses across the country that are all being held hostage by a very onerous paperwork requirement in filing. But the threshold of needing 67 votes was too high, even though people from both sides of the aisle voted for both the measures that were offered. We want to help small businesses around the country and eliminate what the IRS says is going to be almost impossible to comply with, what small businesses say is going to be expensive to carry out, and what Senator Johanns, in an amendment, has a paid-for solution. I think this is something we should, as a Senate and as a body, be committed to adopting. The President of the United States says this needs to be solved. What I heard now is an objection to something I think is a very reasonable request, and I am sorry that objection has been made. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this request, again, has come to us just moments ago. This is the first time we have had a chance to look at this. I will not speak to the merits of the bill and the problems that may exist, but this is not the way to handle this. As you know, we are now in December, in the lameduck session. There are things that could have been brought up any time in the last 1\1/2\ years to 2 years, and we have focused specifically on making sure taxes are not increased for Americans between now and January 1. All Americans are concerned about those taxes going up. As a result, I think it is time to stop the theater we have and get to the business we all know we need to address and I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am not going to answer a hypothetical. What I will tell you is, we did send a letter to Leader Reid. I will be happy to go through the entire letter at this point: Dear Leader Reid: The nation's unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become the Senate's priorities. For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike. Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. Without Congressional action by December 31, all American taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual income-tax rates and investment income through the capital gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time, Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax ``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009. We look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive manner to keep the government operating and provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented. With that, I tell you that all 42 members of the Republican Party, this side of the aisle, have signed their names. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. I would be happy to read the entire letter that was sent to Senator Reid if there is some question as to what was exactly in that letter.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I understand Senator Brown of Massachusetts objected to this request yesterday and offered a fully offset alternative. Therefore, on his behalf, I do object and ask unanimous consent that his proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, welcome to the Senate. It is a pleasure to have the Senator from West Virginia joining this body. I will tell the Senator that ever since the health care law has been passed, I come to the floor every week as a physician, as someone who has practiced medicine for a quarter of a century, taking care of families across the State of Wyoming, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I bring that each week, bringing a different story of someone who has not been helped by the health care law, someone who has been hurt by it, an identifiable victim of the health care law. I heard it at home over Thanksgiving from doctors, nurses, as well as patients. I believe this law is going to be bad for patients, for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, as well as for taxpayers. It has been no surprise to me that Americans want and expect repeal of this health care law. The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that Americans support repeal of ObamaCare by a margin of 21 percent; 58 percent are for repeal and 37 percent are not. Independent voters support repeal by 24 percentage points, 59 to 35 percent. So I continue to come to the floor to bring out to our colleagues the concerns I have about the health care law and the concerns I hear at home from patients and from providers and from taxpayers. I wish to mention that recently the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to members of the medical school class of 2014. These would be the incoming medical students, first year medical students in your State and mine. In the letter that goes to about 15,000 or 16,000 first-year medical students, she talks about this health care law and about how she believes it will be good for them as medical students and good for their patients. One of the things she talks about in the letter, interestingly enough, is she said that many of you and your siblings are undoubtedly under the age of 26, as many first-year medical students are. She then raises the issue that says you will now be able to stay on your family's insurance policies until you are 26. As you know, this was one of the selling points behind this health care law, that young people would be able to stay on their insurance policies until the age of 26. The Secretary points that out to all incoming medical students. I think it came as quite a surprise--it did to me, and I think it should have to these medical students and others--to read a story on November 20 in the Wall Street Journal that talks about--the headline is: ``Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers' Children.'' The idea was that children were supposed to be covered under this health care law. I will start by reading this: One of the largest union-administered health insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials say. This is the Service Employees International Union. They are dropping coverage for about 6,000 children. The President has said no children will be dropped. The Secretary said no children will be dropped. Yet a union, which has encouraged, through its lobbying efforts, support of the health care law is now dropping 6,000 children. Why are they doing it? It says the health care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand the coverage up to age 26. What they say is: Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible. During the entire debate on the health care law, people said that many of these rules and regulations and requirements are going to be financially demanding. Yet this body, before the occupant of the chair arrived, crammed this law down the throats of the American people--the American people who don't want it or like it and have asked that it be repealed and replaced. Now even one of the unions that lobbied for it is saying: We are actually going to drop 6,000 children who had previously been covered because of the legislation, and they say it would be financially impossible to comply with. So, Mr. President, I looked at the Secretary's letter, I looked at this response, and Tom Coburn, another physician in the Senate, and I had a lot of concerns about the letter the Secretary sent to the medical students of this country. So we also sent a letter, an open letter, to America's medical students in the first year of their medical school. What we wanted to do was to first congratulate these young men and women on dedicating their time, their talent, and their skill in the service to others. We talked about the importance as physicians and as medical students of truly listening to their patients because one of the basic tenets of medicine is nothing should come between a doctor and his or her patients. It is important for them to be able to have the time to listen, to focus, and to spend time and not allow anyone or anything to come between the doctor and the patient. Yet here in the Senate we passed a health care law that puts Washington and faceless bureaucrats between the doctor and the patient. We talked about the significant change in the doctor-patient relationship in this letter Senator Coburn and I sent to medical students and our concerns that Washington is now going to have more power to determine the care these medical students and future doctors are going to be able to deliver to their patients. We talked about the 150 new government regulating bodies coming out as a result of this 2,700-page bill and that they are going to intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship. We talked about our concerns about what is called cookbook medicine--follow these rules--because of the new authorities that have been provided by these 150 new bodies that have been created by the law and that decisions will be made based on cost rather than on what may be best for the individual patients. The President continues to talk about providing coverage for more people. Well, there is a lot of difference between coverage and care, and that is why, when a leader in Saudi Arabia had a recent health problem within the last 2 weeks, he chose to come to the United States--because it is the best care in the world. The World Health Organization may have someone else listed at No. 1, but the ruler from Saudi Arabia decided to come to the United States. He didn't go to Cuba or England or Canada; he came here for our care. We want the young men and women who are in medicine, who are going into medicine and training in medicine to be able to provide that kind of care. And we want the American people to be able to continue to receive that kind of care. Unfortunately, in this body, political passion overtook good policy, and a law was passed that I think is not going to be good for patients or for providers or for those people paying the bill. So that is what I hear every weekend at home in Wyoming. It may be what you hear as well. I know you have heard that in your home State. Yet the President of the United States sat for a wide-ranging interview with Barbara Walters on television the other evening, and when he described this health care law, he said he was extraordinarily proud of health care reform. What I consider a health spending bill he calls a lasting legacy which he said, ``I am extraordinarily proud of.'' That is one reason I was surprised to see the headline in the Washington Post, which actually, I believe, was the same day as the President's interview with Barbara Walters. In the Washington Post edition of Friday, November 26, the front-page headline reads ``Doctors Say Medicare Cuts Forcing Them to Shift Away From Elderly.'' Medicare cuts are forcing them to shift away from the elderly. This is what we talked about during the debate on the floor of the Senate when that health care law was being debated, that they have taken $500 billion away from Medicare--not to save Medicare, not to help our seniors, not to extend the life of Medicare, no, but to start a whole new government program. That is why every week I come to the floor to offer a doctor's second opinion and share with all those in this Chamber and the American people why I believe, as a doctor who has practiced medicine for a long time, that this is a health care law that we need to repeal and replace--replace it with something that is good for patients, good for providers, and good for the taxpayers of this country. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Robert Daley for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Robert is a native of Pennsylvania and graduated from Governor Mifflin Public High School. He graduated from American University, where he majored in political science. 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 want to thank Robert 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 Max Weiss 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. Max is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Rock Springs High School. He attended Leiden University where he received his master's of clinical psychology. 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 want to thank Max 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 Greyson Buckingham for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Greyson is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Jackson Hole High School. He currently attends Georgetown University, where he is majoring in history and government and minoring in Spanish and philosophy. 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 want to thank Greyson 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 Ian Lowe for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ian is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Campbell County High School. He graduated from the University of Wyoming, where he majored in international studies and environment. 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 want to thank Ian 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, a couple of weeks ago, Americans voted. They voted for more jobs, for less spending and, of course, for smaller government. As you know, I have come to the Senate floor week after week to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. Polling shows that 58 percent of Americans voting on election day still want to repeal and replace the President's new health care law. Americans have made it clear they oppose this new policy that put Washington between patients and their doctors. The day after the election, President Obama was asked about his health care law's impact on the election. He didn't seem to understand the message from the American people. It appears to me that the President continues to believe the American people liked his policy but just didn't like his sales pitch. Well, in the President's first year alone, he participated in 42 press conferences, gave 158 interviews--including 5 Sunday shows all in 1 day--held 23 townhall meetings and had 7 campaign rallies. In fact, there were only 21 days in that entire first year when the President had no public or press events. Clearly, the American people heard the President's sales pitch; they just didn't want to buy his product. Nevertheless, the President and this Congress proceeded to force this new health care law upon the American people, and they paid a heavy price in the 2010 elections when Americans voted for candidates who vowed to overturn the President's new law. Republicans have listened to the American people and are committed to ensuring that America's health care system continues to remain the best in the world. As a physician, as well as a Member of the Senate, I listened carefully to the discussions and the debate during the entire campaign season. I listened to what candidates had to say on both sides of the aisle, I listened to what Americans had to say all over the country, and I put together something called United Against Obamacare. It is a compendium of comments and statements made by the 13 newly elected Republican Senators to this body who will take office within the next 2 months. Let me read sentences taken from statements each of them made about health care. I view the health care bill as the single greatest assault to our freedom in my lifetime. The thing that worries me the most about this bill, 2,000 pages of all kinds of mandates, huge new government control of health care, is that in time--and it won't be much time-- the government is going to intervene between patients and their doctor. That first sentence was by Senator-elect Johnson and the next sentence was from Senator-elect Toomey. I don't want the government to tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable about my health care options. I want my doctor to tell me what's best for my care. That statement was made by Senator-elect Boozman. It is not supported by the American people. They do not want one size fits all health care. A statement made by Senator-elect Coats. Government control of health care will reduce competition, limit personal choices, and increase overall costs. A statement made by Senator-elect Hoeven. I think premiums will rise, and as people begin to deal with the penalties of Obamacare, we will have more loss of jobs. That was Senator-elect Rand Paul. Next: We're becoming less competitive every time government increases the cost of being in business--and if it's a problem for a large business, my small business men and women will have even greater struggles to overcome. That was Senator-elect Moran. Next: I do not think that 12 new taxes and cuts to Medicare are in the interest of the people. That was Senator-elect Kirk. It's going to bankrupt America, it adds $2.5 trillion to our debt in the long term. That is Senator-elect Rubio. That's why it's important to keep the repeal effort alive. What we owe is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. Senator-elect Ayotte. Every possible means must be applied within Congress as well as through the application of the Constitution and the law to stop full implementation of this legislation. Senator-elect Lee. I have proposed over a dozen health care solutions to help reduce the cost of health care. Senator-elect Blunt. And in conclusion: I can tell you at least one thing coming . . . When it comes time to vote to repeal health care, I vote yes. Senator-elect Portman. That is United Against Obamacare and statements made by the men and women who were recently elected to the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle. We will fight to repeal the law and replace it with legislation that will help patients and providers and taxpayers. During his recent press conference, President Obama also said that if Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, he would now be happy to consider them. Well, it would have been nice if he had considered our ideas during the last 2 years but better late than never. Since the President was sworn in, Republicans have proposed a host of proposals that will improve health care in America. Today, I wish to walk through some of the Republican ideas that are strongly supported by a majority of the American people. First, if Congress wanted to truly demonstrate that it got the message--if it truly wanted to demonstrate that it got the message--the House and the Senate would immediately repeal the President's new health care law. Senator DeMint currently has a bill that would repeal the health care law in its entirety. By passing this law, we could ensure that the American people will get the reform they want. It is unlikely that Democrats will vote for a straight up-or-down repeal bill, and even less likely that the President would sign it into law. So I wish to talk about other Republican proposals that would eliminate some of the most egregious portions of the President's new health care law. Senator Hatch of Utah proposed the American Job Protection Act. It repeals the health care law's job-killing employer mandate. It strikes relevant sections in the health care law forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. Senator Hatch has also introduced the American Liberty Restoration Act. It repeals the health care law's individual mandate--the mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. The Federal Government has never before forced the American people to purchase a product, a good, or a service they may not want. We should overturn this unconstitutional mandate. Senator Johanns introduced the Small Business Paperwork Elimination Act. It repeals section 9006 of the health care law. Section 9006 requires business owners to submit separate 1099 reporting forms for each business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600 over the course of a year. Small business owners now, with this law, have to file 1099 forms for basic business expenses, such as phone service, Internet service, shipping costs, and office supplies. This only serves to increase the cost to own and to operate a business. Why? Because, according to the law, they will then be able to provide $17 billion more in taxes to pay for this unwanted health care law. Senator Cornyn introduced the Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act. It repeals the health care law's Independent Payment Advisory Board. This bill would remove the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from their position of making Medicare payment and reimbursement decisions. Senator Enzi offered the grandfather regulation resolution of disapproval. This resolution overturns a new Obama administration health care law regulation. President Obama repeatedly promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. This so-called grandfather regulation breaks that promise. The new regulation was supposed to spare businesses already providing health insurance to their workers many of the higher costs of new mandates imposed by the health care law. If businesses lose this so-called grandfathered status, then they will be required to comply with all the new insurance mandates in the law. This includes requirements to offer a Federal minimum benefit package and to waive copayments for certain services. This will force our small businesses to change plans and increase costs. In fact, the regulation--and it is a regulation where they took two pages of the law and blew it into 121 pages of regulations--the regulation estimates that fully 80 percent of small businesses can expect to lose their grandfathered status based on the extensive regulations the administration wrote. This is a job-killing, wage- cutting regulation. Certainly, this is not the reform the American people were promised. Also, just this week, Leader McConnell is filing an amicus brief regarding the health care litigation that is currently pending in Florida's Federal court. His brief argues that the individual mandate is not authorized by Congress and that the Government cannot use the commerce clause to force citizens to buy a product. This list of ideas represents only a fraction of the Republican ideas currently on the table. If the President is serious about working with us, he will consider our constructive proposals. If not, he will continue to see the American people strongly speak out against his expensive, overreaching, and ideological agenda. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. As my colleagues know, I have come to the floor week after week after this bill was signed into law with a doctor's second opinion based on my nearly quarter of a century practice in Wyoming, taking care of families there. I go home every weekend and talk to people. The people of Wyoming remember when the President of the United States spoke to a joint session of Congress and he told the American people about the plan that was later signed into law. During that speech the President said: . . . if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. I think I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee say that if you like your plan, you can pretty much keep it. That is not what the President said. Pretty much keep it? With those words, the President-- and congressional Democrats--made a vow to 170 million people who get health coverage through their employer. The President and congressional Democrats promised that if you like what you have, then the health care law would let you keep it. What a difference a year makes. On June 14 of this year, the Obama administration released a 121-page ``grandfathered health plan'' rule. It is a rule that clearly violates--clearly violates--the President's promise. Let me explain how. ObamaCare included a provision allowing existing insurance plans to be ``grandfathered'' under the new law. Theoretically, that means that employers and individuals would not have to give up the coverage they have and they like to comply with onerous government rules and mandates. So you have to make sure, though, that you read the fine print. Look at the chart. The chart in the new administration rules estimates between 39 and 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered health plan status. The picture is even worse for small businesses in America, and it is small businesses that are the engines that drive this economy. The same chart in this report estimates that by the year 2013, up to 80 percent--80 percent--of small businesses will lose their grandfathered status. This means American businesses will not be able to keep their current insurance plans. That is what this means. They will be required by the Federal Government to comply with all the new mandates which are very expensive and are contained in the new health care law. This only serves to drive employer health care costs up, making it even more difficult for them to offer health insurance to their workers. I am sorry. Maybe the American people are confused. The American people believed the goal of reform was to lower health care costs. America's small businesses struggle each and every day to find a way to provide health insurance to their employees. The government should be making it easier for businesses to keep providing the coverage. Instead, this bureaucratic regulation drives prices up. This is going to increase the odds that employers are going to simply choose to stop offering health care insurance coverage completely. Additionally, this so-called grandfather regulation makes it much harder for employers to make health insurance changes that would actually help to keep down the cost of care, to keep down the cost of coverage. Today, businesses have very few options if they want to keep costs in check, as well as keep their grandfathered status. Businesses that lose their grandfathered status are then forced to comply with all the new rules, all the mandates in the health care law, and now, even by the White House's own admission, we are talking about up to 80 percent of the small businesses in this country. Subjecting employers to these mandates forces them to change and to expand their insurance plans. What does that mean? Well, it means costs are going to go up. No surprise. It is obvious this administration doesn't want the American people to be able to keep what they have if they like it. The law wasn't written that way, and certainly the regulations were written in a way that violates--and this is the White House--the White House regulations were written in a way that violates the pledge the President made to the American people. President Obama and congressional Democrats certainly like using their talking points, but the American people know it is just spin. That is why this bill was unpopular when it was signed into law and now, 6 months later, it is even more unpopular, with 61 percent of the American people wanting this bill and this law repealed and replaced. That is why I come to the floor today to support the efforts of my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39, a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the administration's so-called grandfather rule. It is an honor to stand with Senator Enzi and fight against this job-killing Washington mandate. I appreciate his leadership but, more importantly, his dedication to make sure the President keeps his promise--a promise that if you like the health insurance you had before the new health care law was passed, then you can actually keep it. That is my second opinion. That is why we need to repeal and replace this health care law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the Wyoming Army National Guard 300th Armored Field Artillery Battalion Cowboy Cannoneers. On October 1, 2010, the 300th soldiers will gather for their final battalion reunion. This reunion marks the 60th anniversary of their Korean war mobilization. On August 19, 1950, the citizen soldiers of 300th AFA answered the call, picked up their rifles and put on their uniforms to defend our great country. My wife Bobbi's father, Sergeant First Class Robert L. Brown was one of these brave men.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I will offer a unanimous consent request in a moment that will permanently lock fairness into the Tax Code. American taxpayers are currently allowed to deduct either State income or sales taxes on their Federal tax return. Americans who live in States with a State income tax have always been able to deduct their State taxes. Since passage of the 1986 tax reform, Americans living in States without a State income tax have been out of luck. With the leadership of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Congress responded by reinstating a deduction for State sales tax. This provision provided financial relief for millions of taxpayers, and it brought back some fairness to the Tax Code. Americans in States that have no income tax, such as Wyoming, Texas, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, and Washington, finally received relief similar to individuals in States with State income taxes. The sales tax deduction needs to be made permanent. Now is not the time to raise taxes on American taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3617; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 35, a bill to provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales taxes, be inserted; I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say that Senator Thune has a bill similar in design to deal with a number of needed concerns and considerations, and in light of the fact that Senator Thune's legislation has been objected to and not yet been able to get clearance from the other side, I do object.