John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in joining my colleague from Wyoming, he and I had a townhall meeting together in Gillette, WY, his hometown, a wonderful community. I was just there last week for a Veterans Day parade. What Senator Enzi knows and I know is when we talk to the people of Wyoming, they want commonsense solutions. As I am here with the House-passed bill and the Senate bill we are now looking at, people of Wyoming are astonished at the amount of pages in this sort of thing, how to deal with this, how to comprehend it. What does it mean? What if I like something on page 208 but don't like something on page 1,200? We ought to be using a step-by-step process. My colleague has a wonderful program, a 10-point plan to improve our health care, and any one of those would be a positive step to actually helping American families, helping them get the health care they would like and they need. But not these bills--one through the House, one through the Senate. I don't know if my colleague wants to join me in discussing the townhall meetings, where people said: We want health care reform; we want things that are going to make life better but to help keep down our premiums, help keep down the cost of our care. Eighty-five percent of Americans have health care coverage. They are just not happy with the cost. What I heard for the last hour from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is we need to cover more people; we need to cover more people. That is only part of it. We need to keep down the cost of care for the 85 percent of people who like the care they have. That is what happens when we get together with groups of people from around the State of Wyoming who come out for our townhall meetings to discuss the issues, to listen. We are there mostly to listen; they are there mostly to talk. I ask my colleague, is that not exactly what we heard: We need changes but not this?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, here you have it, what we have been waiting for for weeks and weeks, what has been put together behind closed doors. People all across the country have seen the doors behind which people, in secret, have been writing this bill. It is 2,074 pages. Some people call it remarkable; I call it a monstrosity. The leader of the majority, Senator Reid, has said that of all the bills we have seen, it will be the best. Mr. President, it is the best of the worst. It just looks like more of the same. All of the things I have been talking about--it still does those sorts of things. It still raises taxes on Americans, higher payroll taxes--and this is the Associated Press talking, not just me. Companies will pay a fee. That is from the Associated Press as well. It adds an array of tax increases, a rise in payroll taxes. That is from the Washington Post. It relies primarily on a new tax. That comes from the Washington Post as well. Then the New York Times says: New taxes and new fees. It is more of the same. It is the best of the worst. What about Medicare cuts? Oh, they are in here, too, you better believe it. It is relying on cuts in future Medicare spending to cover costs. That is from the Associated Press. It is financed through billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. That is from the Washington Post. There will be reductions in Medicare. It is all in here--taking away the health care of the seniors of this country, who have relied on Medicare and have been promised Medicare, to start a brandnew program which is in these 2,074 pages. It is just wrong. Then look at the budget gimmicks. The costs of this legislation--and the CBO came up with some number, but it is not what the real cost is. This thing is going to cost $2.5 trillion over a 10-year period. They try to get the number down. How do they do it? They start collecting taxes on day one, but until they actually implement the program--the things that are supposed to help Americans, they have delayed those things through 2014. Here we are in 2009, and the people who are watching at home and saying: This is going to help me next week, forget it, wait another 5 years. That is the way they maneuver and manipulate the numbers. Here we have it--a bill that still raises taxes, still cuts Medicare, uses lots of budget gimmicks, and will cost the American people trillions and trillions of dollars. Mr. President, obviously health care is one of the most important issues Congress is going to take up this year and maybe in our careers in the Senate. This may be the most important issue and bill we are ever asked to vote upon. I travel home to Wyoming every weekend. I talk to people. I was there for 5 days over Veterans Day. I say to them: What do you need? What do you think? What are your thoughts on this? They say: Deliver to Washington a clear and simple message: Fix what is wrong with the health care system. Whatever you do, don't make things worse for me. I have town meetings and ask people: Do you think it is going to cost more or less if this is passed? And I have had telephone townhall meetings with folks around Wyoming, and there is a way you can poll and ask people their ideas. People believe it is going to cost them more. I ask: Is your care going to be better or worse? People believe it is going to be worse, that they are going to pay more and get less. That is not the kind of value the people of Wyoming or anywhere in America want. It is not the kind of work they expect out of Congress. They want us to fix what is wrong with the health care system. As Senator Alexander said earlier, we need a step-by-step approach in the right direction, dealing with the things we can do to improve the system. Whatever you do, they say, don't make matters worse for me. That is what people care about. That is what they care about in the telephone townhall meetings and the meetings we have in person. They say: What does this mean for me and my family? What will it mean to our health care? What happens if I get sick? That is what people care about. None of them want to read this bill, and probably none of them will read the bill. It is on the Internet, after weeks behind closed doors. I hope the people in Wyoming and around America read it so that they know about the travesties in the bill and the impact it will have on them personally. It is the wrong prescription for America. And it is not just me saying that. Yesterday, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal, and the dean of Harvard Medical School--it is in Boston, which is where they have this whole Massachusetts health care plan. He said that it is not working in Massachusetts and that this is not going to work for America. He gave the health care bill we are looking at in this Congress a failing grade. It doesn't do a good job in dealing with costs, access, or quality. It misses the boat on all of them. The people who believe this is going to be helpful collectively are delusional, absolutely wrong. They have no idea how this will be for the health of our Nation. Yet this is what we are looking at. As Senator Reid says, what we have seen, of all the bills he has seen, it is the best. It may be, but it is the best of the worst. It looks like more of the same. Some people in Wyoming in townhall meetings say: Don't take away my freedom to choose the plan I want. Well, this bill sort of does that. If they have something they like, this has a lot of numbers and mandatory sets in there--the sorts of things that will take away freedoms of the people to choose specifically what they want because of all of the mandates this has to cover, and it has to cover this, that, and the next thing. A lot of people don't want that. People also say: Don't cut my Medicare. I hear that all around Wyoming and around the country. There are 11 million people on Medicare Advantage. That Medicare Advantage Program is actually the only Medicare Program that does a good job of working on preventive care and coordinating care, and that is going to be slashed under this program. So we are going to take away prevention and the things that have to do with coordinated care. Just take a look at this monstrosity of over 2,000 pages. People say: Don't cut my Medicare or raise my taxes. We are looking at 10.2 percent unemployment right now. This is not the time to raise taxes. It is just not the time. We need to focus on getting jobs moving in the economy and helping people hire new people. With that 10.2 percent unemployment, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes, but that is what this bill will do. That is not just me saying that; it is also the AP, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. All along the way, it is higher payroll taxes, companies paying fees, raising payroll taxes, primarily new taxes and fees--one after another--to pay for something the American people do not want. The people say: Don't make me pay more for my family's health care. But that is what is going to happen across the board. Premiums are going to increase, the premiums for people who have insurance--the premiums people pay who have insurance. For the 85 percent of Americans who have insurance, those costs will go up. This plan was designed, theoretically, when it was announced a year ago, to get costs down, to get premium costs down. This raises the premiums for the American people. We are living in a time and in an economy when people say they can't afford this sort of a bill. The American people don't want it. I travel around the State and visit with people. I visited with a young lady from Cody, WY, who has health insurance through her job, and she likes it. She takes care of her family. She found out that because of increasing premiums--which will get worse if this bill passes--the raises people think they are going to get will not be coming to them. In some places, they have had their pay cut a little bit so they can continue with the health care they have. They like the care, but they don't like the cost of their care. Again, this doesn't get the costs down for American families. Premiums will go up. This is what we have been seeing all across the country. Whether it is independent people, whether it is people who work for government, whether it is people who sell insurance or those who buy insurance or people who need insurance, across the board, people say these atrocious health care proposals will make matters worse for the families, for the men and women of this country. They are going to be paid for not just by them but also by the young people, as the debt continues to accumulate in our Nation and goes on to impact the young people of this Nation. The people of Wyoming want practical, commonsense health care reform--the kinds of reforms that will drive down the cost of medical care, that will improve access to providers, that will create more choices. They don't want things that will increase the costs or things that will limit access or things that will take away their choices. Obviously, the majority leader and the Democrats in Congress have a very different plan in mind. Their legislation is going to force upon Americans higher health insurance costs through higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and more government control over health care decisions. That is not reform. There are only two physicians in the Senate. The two of us bring a unique perspective to the health care debate. I practice medicine, taking care of families from all across the great State of Wyoming. I have dedicated my life's work to helping patients live longer, live healthier, and stay well. I can say, without reservation, in this Nation, we do offer some of the finest medical care in the world. I am not blind to the fact that our health care system has failings. I have seen them firsthand. We can fix a broken system in a way that actually works to get costs down, to get more people covered, to give people more choices, not in this plan, not in this atrocious plan which raises taxes, cuts Medicare, and takes away choices from the American people.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the 30th anniversary of Public Law 96-114, which is the Congressional Award Act. My predecessor, Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, was a champion of this program. In 1979, the late Congressman James Howard of New Jersey and Senator Wallop introduced the Congressional Award Act legislation. Thirty years ago, as you recall, America was still living with the Cold War. The country was in the middle of a serious national conversation, one that would require America's young people to participate in a period of national service. It was a controversial concept, in part because the country had eliminated the armed services draft. Legislation to establish the congressional award had been introduced in Congress for several sessions, but no action had yet been taken. When Senator Wallop was approached as someone who might have an interest, he quickly understood and embraced the core of the program. Our Nation's young people have worthy contributions to make to the world around it, he thought and he said, and the process required to earn an award was a productive path to determine their future. Senator Wallop felt that if America was thinking about requiring national service, then Congress should recognize and thank America's youth for their positive contributions made through the course of their own lives. He saw the congressional award as the perfect opportunity to do this. When Senator Wallop agreed to serve as a sponsor of the congressional award, he made it a full commitment. The legislation quickly moved through Congress, and it became law in his very first term of the three terms he spent in the Senate. The congressional award is available to any young person in our country aged 14 to 23, no matter their life circumstances or their current abilities. Through goal setting, participants move from where they are to where they can be, providing service to others and exploring their own interest in the process. Recipients of the award are not selected for it. The recipients of the award earn it. It has been my privilege to witness the success of this program both in my home State of Wyoming and around the country. I thank all of the Members of Congress who are involved in the congressional award in their own States and districts. I encourage those who have not yet done so to bring this program to their young constituents. And most of all today, I thank our former colleague, Senator Malcolm Wallop, for his gift--a gift of opportunity for America's young people through the creation of a congressional award, an award that was signed into law 30 years ago today. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to recognize the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation's 90 years of service. Since its first meeting, the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation has advocated for Wyoming farm and ranch families in local, State and Federal policy. The organization has been a leader in advocating for low taxes, less government, multiple use, and most of all private property rights for generations. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation provides organization, resources, and service to our agriculture community. Among the strengths of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is the organization of the Farm Bureau Young Farmers & Ranchers Program. This program provides resources and leadership for men and women beginning their careers in agriculture. The program is laying the foundation for future leaders in Wyoming agriculture and our rural communities. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation serves as a reliable source of agriculture and business information in Wyoming. Many in Wyoming turn to Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation as the source for up-to-date agricultural news. The organization provides timely information and valuable insight into current issues facing Wyoming and America. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation members will celebrate 90 years of service at their annual meeting this week in Casper, WY. They will remember the pioneer spirit that brought together farmers and ranchers from Wyoming's counties 90 years ago. The foresight of those early members has allowed the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation to be the leading agriculture organization that it is today. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation has led the way to preserve individual freedoms and expand opportunities in agriculture for 90 years. I recognize this important milestone, and I wish the organization and all of its members future success.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi today to introduce the Heart Mountain Relocation Center Study Act. This legislation will authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the site of Heart Mountain Relocation Center near Powell, Wyoming. The site is an important part of our national history and of the history of our communities in western Wyoming. This legislation is truly a credit to the individuals, local communities and grassroots organizations supporting recognition of the Heart Mountain site. Many of these individuals readily share their experience of the years between 1942 and 1945, when Japanese American families from the West Coast were forcibly moved to Park County, Wyoming and interned at the site near Heart Mountain. During those years, the Heart Mountain site was the third- largest community in Wyoming, housing nearly 11,000 Japanese Americans. The experience during those years shaped internees and local residents alike. It represents an important chapter in American history. The legislation introduced today will authorize study of the Heart Mountain site and its significance to the mission of the National Park Service. The study will involve participation by the public and evaluate options for future management of the Heart Mountain site. I want to thank the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation, along with other supporting organizations, for championing this cause. It is because of their efforts that this important historical site has been preserved and presented to the public. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is a part of America's history. The special resource study of Heart Mountain Relocation Center will lay groundwork for protecting this history for future generations. I urge Senators to support the Heart Mountain Relocation Center Study Act.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi today to introduce the Heart Mountain Relocation Center Study Act. This legislation will authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the site of Heart Mountain Relocation Center near Powell, Wyoming. The site is an important part of our national history and of the history of our communities in western Wyoming. This legislation is truly a credit to the individuals, local communities and grassroots organizations supporting recognition of the Heart Mountain site. Many of these individuals readily share their experience of the years between 1942 and 1945, when Japanese American families from the West Coast were forcibly moved to Park County, Wyoming and interned at the site near Heart Mountain. During those years, the Heart Mountain site was the third- largest community in Wyoming, housing nearly 11,000 Japanese Americans. The experience during those years shaped internees and local residents alike. It represents an important chapter in American history. The legislation introduced today will authorize study of the Heart Mountain site and its significance to the mission of the National Park Service. The study will involve participation by the public and evaluate options for future management of the Heart Mountain site. I want to thank the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation, along with other supporting organizations, for championing this cause. It is because of their efforts that this important historical site has been preserved and presented to the public. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is a part of America's history. The special resource study of Heart Mountain Relocation Center will lay groundwork for protecting this history for future generations. I urge Senators to support the Heart Mountain Relocation Center Study Act.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, any day now the Senate will begin to debate a single bill affecting the lives, the wallets, and the health of all Americans. Three Senators from the other side of the aisle have been working behind closed doors, trying to stitch together yet another health reform bill--a bill that will restructure 17 percent of the American economy. It is unclear when the other 97 Senators will get to see the majority leader's bill. As we wait for the opportunity to read the bill, to examine the bill, to see what is in it--and the American people are waiting as well--I am reminded of a book that I believe still has much to teach us, ``The Federalist Papers,'' particularly Federalist 62 authored by James Madison. He says this: The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice-- Let's get that over again. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous-- You have seen this 1900-page House bill-- That they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. That is what we are looking at. The quote strikes a chord with everyone who hears it because it summarizes so very well what we are facing today in the Congress--in the Senate, in the House--as we are dealing with health care and health reform. The House health reform bill is nearly 2,000 pages long. The Finance Committee bill is over 1,500 pages. The HELP Committee bill is over 1,000 pages. Some in Washington may believe that drafting a bill in secret and then rushing to enact it into law with little debate is the perfect way to avoid tough questions and public scrutiny. That plan has not gone as intended. The American people are much too smart. As the American people began to understand the details, they began to ask the tough questions. They know what the Democrats in Congress and the administration are trying to do. The American people are not buying it. They are not convinced that we should turn over the Nation's private health care system to Washington, to bureaucrats, and to the Federal Government. Of course the American people want reasonable, commonsense health insurance reform. We need that. But the American people do not want a bill that limits their freedom and bankrupts the country. Fortunately, the American people see that the numbers simply do not add up. They know that if the reform bills we are debating become law, the health care costs are going to go up. I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I was there yesterday. People continue to ask me: How will all of these health care bills affect me and affect my family? Inevitably, the question is followed by a statement. It says: Tell those people back in Washington that I want them to fix what is wrong with our health care system, but whatever they do, that should not make things worse for me and worse for my family. I can't afford to pay more for my family's health care. I agree completely with the people of Wyoming. Health care costs today are rising three times faster than inflation. Especially during these economic times, rising health care costs stretch family budgets to the limit. It also makes it harder for employers to keep offering health benefits to their employees. Now the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary are all telling us what the American people already know. They are telling us that if we pass the health reform bill that is coming before us, we are going to make things worse. What exactly did all of these nonpartisan organizations say? On September 22 of this year, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to the Finance Committee chairman, to Chairman Baucus. In the letter, the CBO said two important things. No. 1, premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current individual market. This was a bill that was supposed to lower costs. No. 2, people with low expected costs for health care would generally end up paying higher premiums. Again, that is not where we are supposed to be heading. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Baucus bill actually causes many individuals and families struggling today to afford health insurance to end up paying more. In the same letter, the CBO also indicated that tax increases in the Baucus bill will make monthly health insurance bills go up, not down. During the Finance Committee debate, my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, asked CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a specific question. He said: ``Would the new fees on health insurers be passed along to health consumers?'' Dr. Elmendorf responded. ``Our judgment,'' he said, ``is that the new fees would raise insurance premiums''--make them go up. The Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed exactly what the CBO Director had said because during the same Finance Committee debate, the Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff said: Basic economics is that the fee will be reflected in higher premium costs. Who pays the premiums? Obviously the people who are being insured or their employees. I wish to point out that, like many things in this Baucus bill, this new insurance tax system, the new taxes begin in the year 2010--next year--a full 3 years before Americans see any benefits, any coverage benefits. So they are going to start paying for this years before the benefits actually arrive. I thought the goal of health reform was to lower the cost for hard-working Americans, not to raise the costs. Instead, the respected economists who looked at this are telling us that monthly health insurance costs will go up for every single American starting next year. Next, the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary, which is another nonpartisan, highly respected scorekeeper, took a look at this Democratic health reform bill. On October 21, they released a memo analyzing the House bill, at the time H.R. 3200. Unfortunately for the Democratic leadership and the White House, the news was not good. The House bill bends the cost curve up. The expenses go up. According to their memo, health care spending will increase if the House bill becomes law. Here is what they said: In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010- 2019, National Health Expenditures would increase by $750 billion or 2.1 percent over the updated baseline projection. Often the government uses fancy, complex language, so let me be very clear about this. They are saying that as national spending on health care increases, American families will see their monthly health insurance premiums go up. My friends on the other side of the aisle will try to tell you the data is meaningless. They will try to tell you the taxpayer-funded subsidies included in the bill will make the health care premiums more affordable. It is fascinating to me that the Democrats do not even try to deny that premiums will go up. They admit it. Instead, they tell us not to worry about it. We should worry about it. The people of Wyoming worry about it. The people of America are worried about it. Why? Because hard-working American taxpayers and the generations to follow will be forced to pick up the tab. I want everyone who is listening to know that the American people are not being fooled. They understand that subsidizing something does not make it cheaper. Not only do the proposals in front of us raise taxes, they slash nearly $500 billion from Medicare, from the hard-working Americans who have given and sacrificed and who rely on Medicare for their health care, and they raise premiums, they raise the cost for people who have insurance. They are doing it not to save Medicare but to create an entirely new entitlement program. Again, my friends on the other side never seem to mention that most Americans will not even qualify for these subsidies that are being promised. About 160 million Americans get their health insurance through an employer. Under the Democratic health reform plans, they will not qualify for a Federal Government subsidy. You have to take the health insurance your employer gives or buy a policy on your own, whether you can afford it or not. That is going to be the law. Either way, it will cost you more if this bill becomes law. We have not even gotten into the issue of the quality of the care you will receive under this new government-run system. The Congressional Budget Office also confirmed that almost 5 million American people who buy insurance through this new government exchange will not receive any help to pay for their insurance. What good are taxpayer-funded subsidies to help pay for premium increases when most people don't actually qualify for the promised help? It sounds to me as if the Baucus bill will stick people with higher taxes, will take away their choices, will remove personal freedom, and will implement changes that increase their monthly health care costs. This is not reform; it is a blatant effort by Washington to take over health care in America. It is important that Members of Congress and the American people fully understand how the Democratic health bills will increase costs, so let's go through the list one by one. We have already talked about the new tax on health insurance providers. Experts tell us this tax will be passed on to patients. BlueCross BlueShield of Wyoming tells me this tax will raise monthly premiums of families in my State by $500 a year. Then there are the new requirements. The Democratic bills all have the Federal Government defining what kind of insurance can be sold and must be purchased. Well, this makes it illegal for insurers to sell certain policies that many people have today, that many people like, and that many people want to keep. How do they accomplish this? The Democratic bills require most health plans to offer products that meet new, higher, specified what are called actuarial values and cover an exhaustive list of mandated benefits. If you do not know what the term ``actuarial values'' means, you are not alone. I have been in the practice of medicine for 25 years taking care of families all across Wyoming. I had never heard of it. ``Actuarial values'' is a technical term. It stands for the total amount of health spending paid for by an insurance plan. In other words, the actuarial value of a health plan depends on all of the benefits, on any cost sharing that the health plan covers. Actuarial values are represented by a percentage. In insurance plans, they can range anywhere from 55 percent to 90 percent. Typically, as these values increase, the cost increases. Well, the health care bill raised this so called actuarial value minimum to a standard of 65 percent, which actually is much higher than many policies that are sold on the market today. As a result, experts tell us that people who buy insurance will pay at least 10 percent more just to meet the new standard. I am sure the other side of the aisle will try to say: Do not worry. We will protect you. You know, the idea was that you should be able to keep the insurance you have so that your premiums will not go up. But what they do not tell you is that you are out of luck if your insurer stops offering coverage or if you want to change your policy in any way. How might you change your policy? Well, you might add dental care or vision benefits. If you want to do any of those changes, you are out of luck. Any change to your current insurance policy and the promise that ``you get to keep what you have if you like it,'' well, that promise will not come true. Finally, there are some new rules called age rating. They are going to drive up the premiums specifically for younger folks. The age rating rules limit the amount premiums can vary between healthy younger Americans and older individuals. Experts tell us that the Finance Committee bill, for example, will cause monthly insurance premiums for younger, healthier people who are then going to be subsidizing older folks who are sicker--to drive up the premiums of younger folks by 69 percent. These extreme price increases will force young healthy people out of the market. A young person will see that it is cheaper to pay a $750 fine annually, what they call a tax penalty, and forget about having health insurance than it is to pay $5,000 a year for health insurance when, as many young people believe, they will never need it. Besides, if this young person does get sick, he or she can always buy health insurance later without facing a penalty. That is exactly how this bill is written. Without a doubt, the policies I have described will cause health insurance costs to go up for millions and millions of Americans, and specifically so very much for young Americans. Plans that the President promised the American people that they could keep if they liked, well, we all know the President cannot and will not keep that promise. I will give a specific example. In Wyoming, a healthy 35-year-old man can go out today and buy a high-deductible health insurance policy for about $90 a month. Scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office estimate this level plan in the Finance Committee bill will cost $392 a month. That is a huge increase because that is what they are going to be mandated to buy. Not one of my constituents can afford to pay 329 percent more for their health insurance than they can pay today. We can solve the problem of rising medical costs without a government takeover of health care. I struggle 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 start by assuming that Washington knows best and should take more authority over all of us. There are better ideas that improve our Nation's health care system, commonsense reforms on which all of us can agree. Having practiced medicine, taken care of families in Wyoming for 25 years, I would prefer a step-by-step approach to reform--simple, commonsense, affordable changes that we can implement right away. And all of those ought to be centered on the patient, patient centered, not government centered: Giving people incentives such as lower costs when they engage in healthy behaviors; prohibiting the use of preexisting condition clauses; allowing people to take their health insurance with them if they change jobs; allowing Americans to buy insurance across State lines, to shop for a policy that is best for them, best for their family; giving people the same tax breaks that big companies get when people buy their insurance policies individually; dealing with abusive lawsuits and the situation there that involves doctors ordering many tests that do not necessarily help the patient stay healthy but help protect the doctor in case of a suit; and allowing small businesses to pool together in order to offer health insurance to their employees at a more reasonable cost to the employees as well as to the business. The time has come to work together for meaningful reform. I think most Americans would prefer that we get these reforms right than pass a 2,000-page bill--a bill that raises taxes, a bill that cuts Medicare, a bill that costs $1 trillion, and a bill that represents a Washington takeover of health care. The American people want better. The American people deserve better. The American people deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I have introduced called the Clean Air Protection Act. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated that she believes the Clean Air Act was not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases. She also says using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change raises serious concerns. I agree with her completely. So then what was the EPA's response to the problem? Well, they developed a tailored interpretation of the Clean Air Act where they ignore certain provisions of the law. This tailored interpretation is actually called the tailoring rule. The tailoring rule is EPA's attempt to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act--limit it to only those businesses that emit 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases. That is 100 times more than the amount of emissions that are currently allowed by law. Saying that the EPA will only limit emissions from large businesses is not allowed under the current law--the Clean Air Act. So if you are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for American businesses, you have to use the standard that Congress has set out in the act. The EPA's approach is not legal, and I can tell you it will be challenged in court. I alerted EPA Administrator Jackson and the EPA Assistant Administrator Regina McCarthy that special interest groups are scheming to sue the EPA. Suits will be filed if the EPA does not follow the Clean Air Act limits--sue them to capture hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and any other small emitters of greenhouse gases. I put a hold on Regina McCarthy at the time she was the nominee to be the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. I did this because of my concern about lawsuits if the EPA attempted to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. I wanted to know what the EPA's solution to the problem would be. When asked about potential lawsuits, Regina McCarthy said that she will-- . . . request that I be informed if any such notice is filed with regard to a small source, and I will follow up with potential litigants. That is the EPA's solution, to sit down over a cup of coffee and ask lawyers for special interest groups not to sue. Groups know the law. They know what it says. The EPA Administrator is opening the door to environmentalists and other activists to file suit--to sue to run small businesses into the ground. Up to 1.2 million hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and other small emitters could be bankrupt. The net result of all of this will be jobs lost. According to the Heritage Foundation, job losses are estimated to reach 800,000. The solution to this problem is not to have government officials go around asking litigants not to sue; the solution is to pass legislation that takes this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table for good. That is why I have introduced legislation to fix the problem. The bill, S. 1622--the Clean Air Protection Act--takes the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. My legislation allows car and truck regulations under the Clean Air Act to move forward, while stopping the regulation of stationary sources, such as small businesses, hospitals, farms, and nursing homes. Given the introduction of the tailoring rule by the EPA, Congress should pass S. 1622, the Clean Air Protection Act, without delay, pass it before the regulatory ticking timebomb goes off. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi today on the floor to share with our colleagues the profound sorrow that is felt all across the State of Wyoming today as we mourn the death of a western American icon and a former Member of this body, the Senate. Cliff Hansen, Senator, Wyoming Governor, died last night, October 20, at home at his ranch in Jackson Hole, WY. He was 97 years old. He was at the time of his death the oldest living former Member of the Senate, a career and a life that spanned nearly a century of American history. But it wasn't the length of time he spent on this Earth that makes his life so unique and so meaningful to all of us who knew him and who respected him. It would be difficult to tell the story of Wyoming without also describing the life and the time of Cliff Hansen. They are intertwined, a pioneer State and its patriarch. If it is true, as many people say, that Wyoming is what America was, Cliff Hansen is the independent spirit, the rugged cowboy who made her great. My wife Bobbi and I wish to offer our deepest condolences to the Hansen and the Mead families, to his beloved Martha, especially, his wife, as Senator Enzi said, of over 75 years. Just last month they celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary. She was with him to the end. Cliff Hansen is a legendary Wyoming figure, but to his family he was a dedicated husband, father, a special grandfather and great- grandfather, and someone who will be terribly missed. He was born October 16, 1912. Prior to graduating from the University of Wyoming, he worked for his parents on a cattle ranch in Teton County. It was there we can presume that Cliff Hansen learned the manner and the skills that would take him from Wyoming to Washington and back. In 1962, Hansen was elected Governor of Wyoming. He served for 4 years. He believed he could do more for the people of Wyoming in Washington than he could in Cheyenne. So he then ran and won a seat in the Senate and was reelected by an overwhelming margin in 1972. These simple dates hardly tell the story. Cliff Hansen was Wyoming's John Wayne--a proud, commonsense cowboy who spoke to the hearts and the minds of a great State. As we have the opportunity to reflect more on Governor Hansen's passing, to hear, as well, from his family, there will be much more to say and remember about his extraordinary legacy. But today, on the news of his passing to the Kingdom of Heaven--a phrase he used with great reverence--I want to make sure his friends and his colleagues know that God accepts home a great man today. To his wife Martha, his son Pete Hansen, his grandsons Matt and Brad and their families, his granddaughter Muffy, the Nation, and Wyoming send you our heartfelt condolences. We hope you and your family are comforted by his strength of character, his convictions, and his grace as a truly great man. I speak today for thousands--for tens of thousands--of people who knew and who loved Cliff Hansen--all that he stood for, all that he today represents that is good about our Nation, the West, and Cliff's beloved Wyoming. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to speak about the conference report we are currently discussing, but I want to first take a second to commend the Senator from Delaware for his fine effort over these many months to continue to call to the attention of America wonderful people who have committed their life to make the lives of other Americans better. He has done a wonderful job, and this is just one more example of both the Senator's job of bringing the news to all of America but also the story of a wonderful individual who has committed his life to improving our great Nation. Madam President, I would like to spend a moment thanking the Senators from North Dakota and from Utah for their hard work on this bill we are currently considering. It represents a truly bipartisan effort. The energy investments in this bill will foster technological innovations and will harness the creativity and hard work of the American people. I believe it will help us move forward on clean coal technology. It will also promote energy efficiency and accelerate research into renewable energy. I want to highlight one issue in particular, if I could, and it deals with our domestic uranium production. The uranium industry provides good-paying jobs across the country, and certainly good-paying jobs in Wyoming. A strong uranium workforce is essential to expanding America's nuclear energy capacity. Uranium production means American jobs and American energy. In August, the Department of Energy proposed transferring-- transferring--a significant amount of uranium to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. The uranium transfer was designed and intended to pay for an environmental cleanup at a facility in Portsmouth, OH. This is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, the proposal of the Department of Energy would have serious unintended consequences. The proposed transfer would flood the uranium market, artificially forcing down spot prices for uranium, and create significant uncertainty in the marketplace. This action would have a devastating impact on domestic uranium mining. It would cost plenty of jobs in my home State of Wyoming but also jobs all across the United States. It would undercut an integral part of America's energy portfolio. The Department's plan, in my opinion, is shortsighted and lacks common sense. Why create jobs in one State by killing jobs in another State? The environmental cleanup can be accomplished without hurting jobs in Wyoming and elsewhere. The conferees recognized the problems with the proposal of the Department of Energy. The conference report directs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department's management of its excess uranium supplies. The bill increases funding for the Portsmouth facility and the cleanup. These steps provide the opportunity to address the necessary environmental cleanup issue without causing the collateral damage in other States. So I thank the Senators from North Dakota and Utah for their work to address this problem. The Department of Energy should rethink its uranium transfer proposal. By working within the framework of the Excess Uranium Management Plan, the Department can get maximum value for its uranium and fund the cleanup of Portsmouth without hurting jobs--good jobs--in other States. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record a letter I received from the mayor of Evanston, WY, William Davis. Evanston is a wonderful community located in the Bear River Valley of southwest Wyoming. The town was founded in the 1800's during construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad. Today, over 11,000 people call Evanston home. Mayor Davis wrote to me last week. He wanted me to know that individuals and communities across Wyoming are feeling the impact of America's current economic times. This does not come as a surprise. What I found of particular interest in Mayor Davis' letter was his observations regarding the primary factor driving our economy: Americans' anxiety about the future. Like Mayor Davis, I hear regularly from the people of Wyoming who are concerned about the future of our country. They are anxious about the changes being proposed in Washington. They are concerned about losing control over their own lives to Federal bureaucracies. They are angry about the financial train wreck called the Federal deficit that is picking up steam and headed their way. Mr. President, the mayor's sentiments are shared by thousands of people across Wyoming. I would ask that his letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in this chamber we have witnessed incredibly moving eulogies and remembrances of our departed colleague Senator Edward Kennedy. Obituaries in national and international newspapers convey the historic milestones of his life that none could forget, as well as more personal stories of the man that fewer knew. So much has been said and written since Senator Kennedy's death August 25, 2009. Many of these stories paint the picture of his family, his life, his accomplishments, his legacy all of it extraordinary. Many of us are students of history. Indeed Senator Kennedy lived history. I am reminded of the recollections of one of my predecessors as U.S. Senator for Wyoming, and a dear friend of Senator Kennedy, Senator Al Simpson. In an interview from 1997 given to the Institute of International Studies at the University of California as part of their ``Conversation of History'' project, Senator Simpson was asked: Who was the finest legislator he had ever worked with? Senator Simpson replied: The finest legislator I ever worked with was Ted Kennedy. He had a magnificent staff, he even had a parliamentarian on that staff of his. So when you were in the legislative arena and you were bringing your lunch and staying late, you wanted to get Ted on your side or at least use some of his expertise. I would go to him sometimes early on and say look, you'll have to trust me, what the hell do I do right now to move this bill? Boy I'll tell you he had ways to do it and as you can see he uses those skills on issues in which I was totally on the other side. I can't remember them all there were so many. We were never on the same side. But he is a legislator. And so he was. He was a quintessential legislator. There is no question about that. Most of those who have so eloquently written and spoken since his death knew the Senator much better than I Presidents, Senators, world leaders, and other dignitaries, members of his family and friends back in New England. They recall the Senator all of us in the Senate knew, even if only briefly a kind, caring, passionate, and deliberate figure. Others have detailed his accomplishments they are legendary and lasting. What can I add to these recollections? I was neither a close friend, confidante, nor legislative partner to Senator Kennedy. I was a new Senator from Wyoming when I first met him. But the story I have, I would like to share, as it is meaningful and illustrates his larger than life personality in the U.S. Senate. On June 25, 2007, I was sworn in to the U.S. Senate. Senator Kennedy was one of a handful of Democrats in the Chamber. As you would expect, I had a lot of family members in the gallery. Later, they joined me along with Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Senator for Wyoming, and Senator Mike Enzi in a reception off this floor. As I was walking up the center aisle to leave the Chamber, there was a booming voice that reverberated through the Chamber. ``Senator, Senator!'' I was new. I had been a U.S. Senator at that point for all of 60 seconds, so I ignored the calls. At that moment a hand grabbed my shoulder, I turned and heard this booming voice again ``Hi, I'm Ted Kennedy.'' Senator Kennedy through his voice and his presence knew how to get your attention. All of those who came to see me sworn in--family, friends from Wyoming--they heard it too and we all broke out laughing. ``Senator Kennedy, we know who you are.'' Senator Kennedy began to tell me stories of his life and about his visits to Wyoming. He spoke about a trip to Rock Springs, WY, when his brother John was running for President. He spoke of Wyoming casting the votes to secure the nomination for John. He told me about the people he had met--members of the Wyoming Democrat Party at the time--relationships he had built nearly 50 years ago. He named one after another as if he was reading from text. It was a stunning moment to watch Senator Kennedy recall places, events, and people in my home State from 1960. At my welcoming reception he took personal time with my son Peter and my daughter Emma, both in college. He said to them, ``So you're the brother and you're the sister--you know I had some brothers.'' He talked about John and Robert and Joe. A living history lesson. He invited them up to his office to show them pictures and other memorabilia. In his office in the Russell Building he must have spent half an hour with Peter and Emma going over pictures of his father Joe, mother Rose, and the Kennedy kids. He shared letters, notes from history. I think he enjoyed it nearly as much as we did. He beamed when he spoke about his family. Senator Kennedy leaves behind an astonishing legislative record of accomplishment. He achieved his goals to a degree that perhaps no other Senator in history has. As a public servant, he has few equals. But he was so much more. Ted also leaves us with the memory of the man--the memory of his kindness and grace, his humility. Books will detail Ted Kennedy's legislative victories. His moments in history. I will remember the moments he took to warmly and unexpectedly welcome this new Senator and touch the lives of my family that day as well. To Vicki, we extend our family's sympathy and hope the coming days are filled with more love, God's grace and strength to go on. Bobbi and I wish the Kennedy family our best and our prayers are with you.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It prevents the Central Intelligence Agency from using any funds from the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill to create or operate a center on climate change and national security. To me, this center is redundant to activity already conducted by the CIA and other Federal agencies. There is no reason to create an additional center to do work already being done. We don't need to duplicate the work of others. Leave the task of gathering and analyzing climate change information to the agencies that do that work. Let them pass that information on to the analysts at the CIA to incorporate it into their assessments. The experts at the CIA should focus work on foreign intelligence gathering to prevent the next terrorist attack. That is what they are trained and equipped to do. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on September 25 the Central Intelligence Agency announced the creation of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security. I am proposing an amendment today to the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill that would prevent funds in this bill from going to that center. The CIA is responsible for gathering foreign intelligence information for the United States. We have threats from around the world. The most immediate of these threats is the prevention of future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. I do not believe that creating a Center on Climate Change is going to prevent one terrorist attack. Why is this administration having our intelligence officials, the men and the women who protect this country, have these men and women staff and operate a climate change center? The creation of this center appears to elevate the issue of climate change to the level of terrorism and foreign espionage. To me, this raises a number of questions. The CIA always claims to have scarce resources and competing priorities. What are the costs going to be of creating this new climate center? Isn't there a more efficient way to achieve the same results using existing resources? Why can't the CIA get this information through traditional channels, such as the State Department officials in the field, the EPA, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and other Federal agencies? How does the CIA get information about other issues--world hunger, disease, financial markets--to make their decisions? Do they have centers for all of these issues as well? Is this center going to make demands on the current CIA bureaucracy? Will they use existing personnel? Will they hire new people? Will necessary personnel have tasking authority? Tasking authority means the ability to take satellites off of watching terrorists and having them instead watching arctic ice sheets. Will someone sitting in a dark room watching satellite video of northern Afghanistan now be sitting in a dark room watching polar ice caps? The priorities seem to be out of focus. I believe the Senate should support this amendment and bring the focus back in line with America's national security interests. The CIA has an important job to do. It must not be distracted by being forced to deal with climate change. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask the pending business be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment, No. 2567, and make it pending.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Julson, of Senator DeMint's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the debate on H.R. 3326.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. That is why the National Governors Association is furious with this huge expansion of Medicaid. It quotes the Governor of Vermont, who says: Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot print money. Many of us, such as Wyoming, live within our budgets. We live within our means. We balance the budget every year. For Washington, in its effort to take over health care in the country, to force the States to pay for it, in what is, to me, a trickery or a financial gimmick, to say they can make the books balance, is not a favor to the American people. That is why people at home ask me every weekend: Can I read the bill? Have you read the bill? Can I read the bill? What is it going to cost? It ultimately gets down to people are very worried about a government takeover, very worried that at a time we are spending all this money as a nation, against my wishes, another trillion dollars for kind of an experiment that is going to fund a lot of it through Medicare. We have not even gotten into the discussion of Medicaid.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, you will be adding to the deficit. That is why seniors all across this country have great concerns about what is being proposed. I am saying: Who is opposed to this? The No. 1 group is seniors, by 2 to 1. Seniors are opposed to what is happening because they know this is going to be paid for out of their own Medicare. Just 10 or 15 minutes ago, we heard the majority leader on the floor of this Senate say--and I wrote it down. He said, talking about his plan, he said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is what he said. But you and I both know there are 11 million Americans, seniors in this country, on Medicare Advantage, which is a program set to help people in cities and people in rural communities. They have both in Tennessee. We sure have the rural communities in Wyoming. It says they cannot keep that if they like it--or 11 million, it is double the number on it in the last couple years because it is so popular, because it actually does what Medicare itself does not do, works with prevention, works with coordinated care. That is what our seniors want. That is why seniors across the country are so opposed to this.

Mr. BARRASSO. I heard that in Wyoming this past weekend. People who depend upon Medicare are rightly suspicious, very suspicious about this program. As they try to learn more about it, what they learn is that it is going to cut Medicare. They are learning it is going to increase taxes. They are learning it will limit what they have in terms of choices for their health care. For all Americans, if you ask: What do you think, is this going to cost more or less, they think it is going to cost more. When I ask people at townhall meetings: Do you think you will have better or worse care, the show of hands is that they will have worse care. Americans don't want to pay more and get less. People want value for their money. People who depend on Medicare are rightly more suspicious than other folks because of the impact this is going to have on them. They understand $500 billion is going to be cut from their health care.

Mr. BARRASSO. It seems to me the people of Wyoming have those very concerns, as does the Governor of Wyoming. I served in the Wyoming State Senate for 5 years, and we know that one of the largest budgets is Medicaid, the aid we give to people in need of health care. But it is almost the same as what we are paying for K-12 education. In Wyoming, we sure do not want to pay for what is happening in the majority leader's home State. I was home yesterday. Yesterday morning, getting on the plane to come back from Wyoming--I go home every weekend. I was at the Wyoming football game, where we won, we beat the University of Nevada Las Vegas, the leader's home State. That was another great day for Wyoming football. But when you go to a game like that in Wyoming, a lot of people come up to you and ask you questions. One of the questions that came up this past weekend was: Have you read the bill? What is in it? What is it going to cost? People of Wyoming say: Am I going to be able to read it? How do I read the bill? Is it going to be on the Internet? Will I be able to see it? To try to explain: There is no bill. There is this concept paper. I have it here. It is called the chairman's mark. It is the concept paper of 220 pages. You look at this, this is not even in legislative language yet. So you are going to be asked to vote on legislation, not just a concept paper.

Mr. BARRASSO. Absolutely. In my practice for 25 years in Casper, WY, I took care of a lot of people on Medicaid. I took care of anybody who needed to see me. But you are right. Across the board, there are many people on Medicaid who do not--are not able to see a doctor. The number you quoted is exactly the one I have. I have an article that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.