John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we all know that one word can make a world of a difference, especially in Washington. Some are advocating for the removal of the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Restoration Act. Doing so would give the government control over all wet areas in the country. In this case, one word will send common sense soaring out the window. It snows in Wyoming. When the snow melts, it often leaves large puddles on ranches and farms across the State. The Federal Government should not be regulating mud puddles. This proposal will be detrimental to Wyoming's farmers and ranchers. We have been living out here for a long time quite successfully without the ``helpful hand'' of Washington. A recent article printed in the June edition of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation's newspaper, ``Wyoming Agriculture'' really hit home. I recommend my colleagues read the article by Kerin Clark. I believe it is an accurate reflection of the feelings of Wyoming farmers and ranchers on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns regarding the nomination of Regina McCarthy to be the Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation in the Environmental Protection Agency. For the past few weeks, I have been seeking responses from the nominee and the administration on their efforts to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. I have put a hold on her because I have serious concerns about the EPA using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. I want to know the plan that the nominee will implement. I want to know how she will protect businesses, farms, hospitals, and nursing homes from the effects of the EPA's endangerment finding. As you know, the endangerment finding designates CO2 as a harmful pollutant to public health under the Clean Air Act. The finding's effects on the Clean Air Act will require EPA to regulate any building, structure, facility or installation that emits more than 250 tons of a CO2 in a year. The result would be thousands of lost jobs, with no environmental benefit to show for it. Hospitals, schools, farms, commercial building and nursing homes will be required to obtain preconstruction permits for their activities. EPA says this will not occur, that they will use discretion and good judgment. According to legal scholars, the statutory language in the Clean Air Act is mandatory and does not leave any room for EPA to exercise discretion or create exceptions. The only jobs that will be created are in law firms as the litigation bonanza begins. EPA will be sued by environmental groups wanting to eliminate exempted sectors. The EPA will also be sued by industries not exempted. It will, as Democrat Congressman John Dingell stated, be a glorious mess. I have nothing personal against Mrs. McCarthy. I simply wanted an answer to a question, the same question Americans all across our country want answered: How are you going to protect them? I still do not have a credible answer to this question. I am tired of the stonewalling. Mrs. McCarthy believes that she can not answer the question until she is confirmed by the Senate. That answer, I believe, is not good enough. She has also stated that she wanted to be informed of any potential lawsuit. She stated she wanted to discuss the issue with the litigants in the hopes of convincing them not to sue. Government officials can't go around the country trying to convince every litigant, whether it be a national environmental group or a local group, not to sue. I have also posed this same question to the EPA Administrator in the hopes that she could provide EPA's plan on behalf of Ms. McCarthy. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that she can target what she regulates. She claims she will only target cars and trucks. That is setting the precedent of picking winners and losers. We do not know what standards will be applied to make those decisions. We do not know what role politics will play in these decisions. Administrator Jackson's statement also ignores the regulatory cascade that the endangerment finding and the motor vehicle emission standards will certainly trigger. Litigators and courts will drive much of this job-killing regulation. We have a nominee to head up the EPA's Air Office, Ms. Regina McCarthy. We have an Administrator of the EPA and we have a climate and energy czar who is supposed to coordinate climate change policy for the administration. Carol Browner, the climate and energy czar has not been confirmed by Congress. We do not know who is developing a roadmap for how to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. What jobs in what industries will be kept? Which industries will be penalized? Who will be held accountable for making these decisions? The economic consequences of the ticking timebomb will be devastating. By the EPA's own estimate, the typical preconstruction permit in 2007 cost each applicant $125,000 and 866 hours to obtain. Ranchers or private nursing homes have no background in this area. They will need to hire lawyers. They will need to hire experts. They will be taking time out of their day to figure out all this redtape. This will create such a fog of uncertainty with investors and small businesses. This makes small businesses even riskier to lend money to; nobody will know how much this will cost their business. With lending having already ground to a halt, this is hardly the right move to help our economy. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are 1.2 million schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farms, small businesses, and other commercial entities that would be vulnerable to new controls, monitoring, paperwork, and litigation. If even 1 percent of the 1.2 million have to get preconstruction permits, that would mean 12,000 new preconstruction permits a year. By the EPA's own analysis, if permitting is increased by just two to three thousand, this would impose ``significant new costs and an administrative burden on permitting authorities.'' According to the EPA, this ``could overwhelm permitting authorities.'' The net result of all of this will be thousands of jobs lost. As I have stated previously on the floor, if the administration can not tell us by what legal authority they can pick winners and losers, if the administration can not provide economic certainty to lenders and businesses, if the administration does not know how they will deal with all the thousands of new preconstruction permits, they should take this job killing option off the table. There appears to be such a frenzy of political pressure from special interests to pass something on climate change. The pressure has reached the point where enacting any climate change policy before Copenhagen is more important than addressing its aftermath. The thinking is, just get something done on climate change. We will deal with the impacts later. That's not how you make good policy. But that is exactly what is going on here. The President's own attorneys, from a host of Federal agencies, have expressed concerns with this approach. Their concerns were contained in a memo. This memo is a well thought out, scientific and legal critique of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change by the Obama administration. It confirms the fears of every small business owner, every farmer, school and hospital administrator, both large and small, that the Obama administration knows that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America. They know it, but for political reasons, they have ignored the science, the consequences to our economy and the impact to the American people. The memo states, ``Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs.'' The document also highlights that EPA undertook no ``systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis'' in making their endangerment finding. The White House legal brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. EPA Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that ``scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified . . .'' But the Obama administration's memo states that this is not accurate. The memo actually questions the science behind designating CO2 as a health threat stating the scientific data on which the agency relies are ``almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.'' The memo goes on to say the essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are ``not well determined'' and ``not well understood.'' This memo confirms that the administration has so far ignored its own advice. What is somewhat surprising is that those who express these concerns are ridiculed or, even worse, attacked by administration officials. In one instance, attempts were made by administration personnel to smear the reputation of a career employee at the Small Business Administration. This was a person who offered a reasonable and thoughtful critique of the impact the endangerment finding has on small business. This is unacceptable behavior by the administration. Strangely enough, not just the authors of the Obama administration legal brief, but also environmental groups, disagree with EPA Administrator Jackson's position that a targeted approach under the Clean Air Act is legal and appropriate. The Sierra Club's chief climate counsel stated last year that ``the Clean Air Act has language in there that is kind of all or nothing if CO2 gets regulated and it could be unbelievably complicated and administratively nightmarish.'' I have warned the administration that groups such as these will sue the EPA if the EPA does not capture both large and small emitters. She has dismissed such threats. This is despite the Wall Street Journal report last month that a representative of the Center of Biological Diversity stated her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters, such as farms, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, if the EPA stops at simply the large emitters. I have asked for a plan from the administration on how she will address losing court cases if the agency is sued for picking winners and losers. Her response in a committee hearing 3 weeks ago is she could not share with me any such plans in that forum. I have posed the question to the administration: If you can't share information with the elected representatives of the 50 States, then in what forum, if not a Senate hearing, can you share the information? I am confident the majority believes they have a strong chance at passing something along the lines of the Waxman-Markey bill this Congress regarding climate change. They are hopeful they can get something to the President for him to sign. If hope alone could pass legislation, we could all adjourn early. But hope is not certainty. The negative effects of the endangerment finding on the American economy is certain. The bottom line is that the nominee, as well as Lisa Jackson and the administration, appears to have no credible plan to use the Clean Air Act in a way to regulate climate change. There is only one responsible choice for us to make. Let us take this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table. This is why I plan to introduce a bill very soon that will take the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. I wish to give every Member an opportunity to join me in giving the Senate and the American people the time we need to forge a sound energy and climate strategy, a strategy that makes energy as clean as we can-- and I am talking about American energy--as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices for American families. Let's develop all of our energy resources--our wind, our solar, our geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear, and natural gas. We need an ``all of the above'' strategy to address our Nation's needs. As Lisa Jackson, the EPA Director, stated on a recent trip to my home State of Wyoming, ``As a home of wind, coal, and natural gas, Wyoming is at the heart of America's energy future.'' That is because Wyoming has it all--coal, wind, natural gas, oil, and uranium for nuclear power. We have it all, and we need it all. I look forward to working with my colleagues, as well as Ms. Jackson, to make that happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it will come as no surprise to many that rural health care issues are near and dear to my heart. Prior to my service in the Senate, I practiced medicine in Casper, WY, for almost a quarter of a century. I have firsthand knowledge of the obstacles families face in obtaining medical care throughout rural America. I also understand the challenges hospitals and providers must overcome in delivering quality care to families in remote areas with limited resources. To give a snapshot of Wyoming's health care landscape, we have only 26 hospitals spread over nearly 100,000 square miles. With vast distances, complex medical cases, and increased demand for technology and advanced medical care, the rural health care delivery system is not a one-size-fits-all system. I have fought, and will continue to fight each and every day, to protect Wyoming's hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve. This is one of my top legislative priorities. That is why I am an active member of the Senate rural health caucus. For decades the caucus has built a reputation of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration and cooperation. Each Congress we come together to design rural and frontier-specific health care legislation. These efforts have produced incredible results. For example, when Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, it included a comprehensive health care package specifically tailored with rural communities, rural hospitals, and rural providers in mind. The Medicare Modernization Act finally put rural providers on a level playing field with other doctors and hospitals across the country. In Wyoming, that meant hospitals in Worland, Lander, and Torrington could keep their doors open and serve patients as close to home as possible. With the passage of that act, Congress put into place commonsense Medicare payment equity provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural and frontier America achieved a significant victory. There was much to celebrate. But the mission is not complete. Several of the act's rural health provisions have expired, and many are set to expire soon. That brings us to the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act or R-HoPE. I have joined Senators Conrad, Roberts, and Harkin in introducing a comprehensive rural health care bill. The legislation is titled the ``Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act.'' This bill reauthorizes expiring rural provisions included in the Medicare Modernization Act. It also takes additional steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system. These inequities continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. But there are additional challenges. We have a great need for adequate outpatient reimbursement in smaller towns, towns such as Rawlins, Kemmerer, and Laramie. Rural hospitals such as these are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for approximately 70 percent of total revenue for small rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower patient volumes. But these same hospitals must compete nationally to recruit doctors and nurses. This is due to an alarming shortage of nurses and other health care professionals across the country. Additional burdens are placed on these hospitals and providers due to higher rates of uninsured and underinsured patients who live in rural areas. Also, seniors living in rural areas have more financial needs and have increased rates of chronic disease. This legislation would preserve achievements in the Medicare Modernization Act and give much needed relief to rural doctors, nurses, and hospitals. First, this bill equalizes payments that are known as Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments. These are payments that help hospitals cover the extra costs associated with serving a high proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. It is time we bring rural hospital payments in line with the benefits big city hospitals receive when they are providing medical care to the uninsured. Second, the bill recognizes that low-volume hospitals do have a higher cost per case, which further puts Wyoming's similar hospitals in the red. This bill would give these unique rural hospitals extra payments, payments that will give Wyoming's low-volume hospitals the resources to continue to provide high-quality, lifesaving medical care. There are several hospitals in my State located in Laramie, Rawlins, Kemmerer, and Lander that need this critical provision. In addition to the Medicare hospital payment provision, this bill also strengthens over 3,500 rural health clinics across the country. Many of these communities depend on these clinics for important preventive health care. Currently, rural health clinics receive an all- inclusive capped payment rate that has not been adjusted, except for inflation, since 1988. That is 21 years. So to recognize the rising cost of health care, this measure would raise the rural health clinic cap from $72 to $92. This increase makes it comparable to the reimbursement urban community health centers currently receive. Since every small town cannot support a full-service hospital, rural health clinics are a key component to deliver medical care all across Wyoming. To see how critical this program is, all we have to do is visit two towns in northeastern Wyoming: Moorcroft, a population of 807; and Hulett, population of 434. Residents in these ranching and mining towns depend on their rural health clinics to receive primary medical care as close to home as possible. Finally, the legislation would help rural areas maintain important emergency medical services. Rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers. They have difficulty recruiting, difficulty retaining, and spend additional time educating EMS personnel. These volunteers have day jobs as farmers, ranchers, teachers, and lawyers. They volunteer because the community needs their help. Not all Wyoming cities and towns have the resources to pay for this service. Even less have the means to buy and upgrade essential lifesaving equipment. This legislation will allow ambulance providers to collect payments for transporting patients to the hospital after they answer a 911 call--regardless of the final diagnosis of the patient. Wyoming is blessed with pristine landscapes. These landscapes, though, also present significant challenges. Longer distances, bad weather, and other challenges make obtaining and providing quality health care often difficult. Our unique circumstances require us to work together to share resources and to develop networks. I believe the Federal Government must continue to recognize the important differences between urban and rural health care and respond with appropriate policy. Washington must remember that one payment system does not fit all. Rural providers provide care for their patients under circumstances much different than their urban counterparts. This legislation is designed to make sure rural hospitals, rural clinics, rural ambulance providers, rural home health agencies, rural mental health providers, rural doctors, and other critical health clinicians are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4:15 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Good Neighbor Forestry Act today along with my Senators Johnson, Udall of Colorado, Bennet of Colorado, Risch, and Bennett of Utah. This legislation authorizes cooperative action between western states and the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management to complete forest and rangeland health projects on private, State and Federal lands. Almost half of the land in Wyoming is managed by Federal agencies. Our State has a long history of forestry, grazing and multiple use of public lands. Recreation and tourism on our public lands is a pillar of our economy. The people of Wyoming are proud stewards of our public lands and our state depends on the public lands for our future. It is my goal to enact common-sense policies to address the management needs of our Federal lands. Wyoming forests, like those of all states across the West, are facing management challenges. We have an opportunity to meet those challenges with policies that encourage forest and rangeland health. Preventing forest fires, removing invasive species, addressing watershed health and conserving wildlife habitat require ``big picture'' thinking. We have to address these threats at the landscape level. Resource challenges do not stop at fencelines, and neither should our policy. The Good Neighbor Forestry Act would set in place a cooperative management policy. This act would allow the State of Wyoming to go forward with forest and rangeland health projects as agreed to by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. With this authority, the agencies can cooperatively pursue projects that address landscape- level needs. This authority would provide on-the-ground management that our private, State, and Federal lands desperately need. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It is of great importance to the people of Wyoming, and public land communities across the West. I hope the U.S. Senate will proceed quickly with its passage to enhance western states' response to growing management challenges. The people of Wyoming demand on-the-ground results. This legislation can deliver those results. I hope we can pass it expediently. Mr. President, I ask unanimous cnsent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on May 25, 2009, we will celebrate the centennial of Powell, WY. Located in the valley of the Shoshone River, Powell is surrounded by the Absaroka and Big Horn mountain ranges, and is east of Yellowstone National Park. One hundred years ago, the U.S. Reclamation Service offered for sale lots in a tract of land designated as the Powell Townsite. The sale began the last week in May 1909 and by June 30 of that year all lots in the square mile tract were purchased. The sale totaled $16,750. While a thriving community was officially born May 25, 2009, the area had been occasionally populated for tens of thousands of years. Stone circles provide the archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence to show that the Shoshone and Crow had active family organizations, camp activities, and domestic life in the area. Perhaps the first White man to view what would become Powell was Lewis and Clark's colleague, John Colter. During the winter of 1807, Colter made the solitary trek from Fort Manuel Lisa to inform the Native Americans living near the Clark Fork River that a new trading post had been established. On his way back, he viewed the sagebrush flats along the Stinking Water River. Just a century later, the town of Powell would be born--and the river renamed Shoshone. In 1906, the U.S. Reclamation Service established an engineering camp on the sagebrush flats and called it Camp Colter. Yet when the townsite was offered for sale, a new name was necessary since another location in the Big Horn Basin was also named for the Lewis and Clark explorer. The town's forefathers chose to honor Major John Wesley Powell, an early explorer, conservationist and reclamationist--and the former head of the U.S. Reclamation Service Geodetic Survey. Powell is a terrific community. On the town's centennial blog, Cathy Howard Miller writes, ``Powell--a small town where everyone knows you and you know them, a place to raise children, where you can feel safe.'' Cathy's words sum up the reason why Powell was elected as one of 10 All-America Cities in 1994. With a population of 5,381, its economy is based upon oil, irrigated farming, ranching, tourism, and agricultural support services. Home of the Powell High School Panthers and the Northwest College Trappers, Powell is a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Powell, WY, a happy birthday.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have in my hand a memo by Obama administration attorneys--a compilation of attorneys--from a number of different Federal agencies. It is marked ``Deliberative'' and ``Attorney Client Privilege.'' This memo is well thought out. It is scientific as well as a legal critique of the decision by this administration to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. The memo confirms the fears of every small business owner, every farmer, every school and hospital administrator, in both large and small communities, that the Obama administration knows that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America. They know it, but for political reasons they have ignored the science. The consequences to our economy have also been ignored, as well as the impact on the American people. I am going to be clear. To me, this memo is a smoking gun. This memo makes clear statements about the dangers to America of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. The memo states: Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs. . . . Costly programs. The document also highlights that EPA undertook no ``systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis'' in making their endangerment finding. The White House legal brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. The EPA Administrator said in the endangerment summary that ``scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified. . . .'' But the memo states that this is not at all accurate. The memo actually questions--questions--the science behind designating carbon dioxide as a health threat, stating the scientific data on which the agency relies are ``almost exclusively from non-Environmental Protection Agency sources.'' The memo goes on to say that the essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are ``not well determined'' and ``not well understood.'' The memo says: The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seems to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty. Under the same precautionary principle, the memo says the Environmental Protection Agency could ``also regulate electro-magnetic fields and noise.'' This memo confirms that the administration has ignored its own advice. It is looking to make up scientific facts to make a predetermined conclusion. This is politics trumping science. It is the American people who will ultimately pay the price. I have long stated my concerns that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is a bad idea for our country. The Chamber of Commerce has stated that 1.2 million new entities such as schools, farms, hospitals, office buildings, big-box stores, enclosed malls, commercial kitchens, nursing homes, and small businesses--in both large and small communities--all would be captured under this preconstruction permit program under the Clean Air Act. If only 1 percent of the 1.2 million major stationary sources of carbon dioxide in this country undertook new construction or modifications each year, well then, the agencies would have to process 12,000 permits every year. Given the EPA's statement in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008 that 2,000 to 3,000 new permits could ``overwhelm'' the EPA and the States, how can permitting authorities handle the 12,000 they would have to look at? How can they handle 12,000 permits annually? The answer is, with everything they do and everything they stated, they cannot. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she is not planning to regulate small emitters. She says she can be targeted in what she regulates. But by what authority can the Environmental Protection Agency of this Nation not include all the emitters of carbon dioxide that meet the emission thresholds that are set out in the Clean Air Act? Strangely enough, not just the authors of the administration's legal brief but also environmental groups disagree with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency because she says she can limit those and regulate those she chooses. The Sierra Club's chief climate counsel stated last year that: The Clean Air Act has language in there that is kind of [an] all or nothing if carbon dioxide gets regulated and it could be unbelievably complicated and administratively nightmarish. The Center for Biological Diversity says: The EPA has no authority [at all] to weaken the requirements of the [Clean Air Act] simply because its political appointees don't like the law's requirements. I have warned the Administrator of the EPA that groups such as these will sue the EPA if the EPA does not capture both large and small emitters. She has dismissed these threats. This is despite the Wall Street Journal last week reporting that a representative of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters, such as farms, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes--and they will do that--if the EPA stops at simply going after the large emitters. I have asked for a plan from the Administrator on how she will address losing court cases if the agency is sued for picking winners and picking losers. Her response in a committee hearing--this was this week--is that she cannot share with me any such plans they might have in that forum of a committee meeting. Well, I would ask the Administrator, if you cannot share information with the elected representatives of the 50 States, then in what forum can you share the information? None of this is in keeping with the transparency that has been promised under this administration. Similarly, I have asked the person who has been nominated to head up the Air and Radiation Office, Mrs. Regina McCarthy, in the Environmental Protection Agency, the same question. Her response was she cannot share with me her plans because she is not in the job yet. She has said she would like to be informed of potential suits and would then personally meet with anyone wanting to sue to convince them not to sue. Well, Government officials cannot go running around trying to convince every litigant--whether it be an environmental group or a local group that does not want something in their backyard--not to sue. This is not a good policy. This is not good enough. I am seriously troubled with the administration and their approach to this issue. I have a hold on Mrs. McCarthy's nomination because this process of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is flawed. There appears to be no plan to address it. With the release of this internal document, we now know that the plan the administration has to address climate change is political and not scientific. They know that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America. They choose to ignore the threat to America. They are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Congress and the American people. Either we will all jump to pass the President's energy tax--his cap- and-tax plan--or we will crash head-on into this regulatory ticking timebomb. In the end, it will be the American people who will have to pay the price. The administration has tried to convince the public to support this cap-and-tax proposal. Charlie Munger, who is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway--who works closely with Warren Buffett; they have been partners for years--stated that creating an artificial market in Government-mandated carbon credits would be a ``monstrously stupid thing to do right now.'' And he said such a move is ``almost demented.'' Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the administration has now consulted pollsters who advocate avoiding such phrases now as ``cap and trade'' and ``global warming.'' The White House Council on Environmental Equality has also scheduled a meeting--earlier this week--with the president of ecoAmerica, a Washington-based nonprofit that uses--their terms--``psychographic research'' to ``shift personal and civic choices of environmentally agnostic Americans.'' This is a sign of desperation. The administration realizes the American people are not buying what they are trying to sell here. The consequences of this issue are too grave for America. Mr. President, I would say take this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table. Let's pass legislation taking the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. Then let's forge a plan in a bipartisan way that makes America's energy as clean as we can make it, as fast as we can do it, without raising energy prices for American families. Let's develop all of our energy resources--wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear, and natural gas. We need it all. We need an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to address our Nation's energy needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address those needs for our Nation. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed highlighted a dangerous game that is being played right now by this administration and by the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is a game that is being played with the American public about which I have great concerns. The piece in the Wall Street Journal was entitled ``Reckless Endangerment: The Obama EPA plays 'Dirty Harry' on cap and trade.'' The article refers to the Russian roulette style of negotiating that is going on right now by cap and tax advocates who want to pass the President's energy tax in this Congress. The administration and the majority of the leadership in the House and the Senate have created a regulatory ticking timebomb. It is called the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding. Well, they want to use this ticking timebomb as a threat to get the President's energy tax passed. They are putting this regulatory timebomb on the kitchen table of Americans all across the country. The message to Americans: Your tax money or your livelihood. This is not an idle threat. If allowed to proceed, the irresponsible use of the Clean Air Act will require the EPA to regulate any building, any structure, any facility, any installation that emits above a certain amount of carbon dioxide. The result would be thousands of lost jobs, with no environmental benefit to be seen from it. Hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and nursing homes will be required to obtain preconstruction permits for their activities. Further, when you talk to the legal scholars, they will tell you that the statutory language is mandatory and does not leave any room for the EPA to exercise discretion or to create any exceptions. That is the problem. The only jobs this option will create are in law firms, as the litigation bonanza begins. EPA is going to be sued by environmental groups wanting to eliminate exempted sectors. The EPA will also be sued by industries that are not exempted. How is the EPA going to respond to all these legal challenges? I asked EPA Administrator Jackson. She says she can target what she taxes. She claims she is only going to target cars and trucks. Well, that really is setting a precedent of choosing winners and losers. We don't know what standards will be applied to make those decisions. We do not know what role politics will play in the decisions. Jackson's statement also ignores the regulatory cascade that the endangerment finding in the motor vehicle emission standards will trigger. Litigators and courts will drive much of this job-killing regulation. We now have a nominee to head up the EPA's Air Office--Mrs. Regina McCarthy. We have an Administrator of the EPA and a climate and energy czar who is supposed to coordinate climate change policy for the administration. Well, Carol Browner, the climate and energy czar, has not been confirmed by Congress--not by this Congress--at all. We do not know who is developing this roadmap for how to hijack the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. What jobs and what industries will be kept? What industries will be penalized? Who will be held accountable for making the decisions? The American people--the people at home in Wyoming whom I talk to--are demanding answers to these questions. The economic consequences will be devastating. By the EPA's own estimate, the typical preconstruction permit in 2007 cost each applicant $125,000. And how much time do they have to put into this work? Well, on average, 866 hours just to fill out the paperwork. If you are a small business, a farm, or a private nursing home, you have no background in this area. It takes a lot of time and effort, so you need to hire lawyers and you need to hire experts. That costs thousands of dollars that are nowhere in your budget. You are taking time out of the day to figure out all this redtape. While you are spending that time and that money, you are not running your business. This is going to create such a fog of uncertainty--uncertainty with investors, uncertainty with small businesses. It is going to make it that much harder for small businesses to borrow money, to get a business loan. Nobody is going to know how much this is going to cost their business. If you take a look at our economic situation, with lending in this country having slowed down significantly, this is hardly the right move now for our country and for our economy. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are 1.2 million schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farms, small businesses, and other commercial entities that are not currently covered under these preconstruction permits, and they are going to be vulnerable to the new controls, to new monitoring, to new paperwork, and to new litigation. If even 1 percent of these 1.2 million have to get preconstruction permits, well, that would mean 12,000 new preconstruction permits this year. By the EPA's own analysis, if permitting is increased by just 2,000 to 3,000, that would impose what they call significant new costs and an administrative burden on permitting authorities. How much of a burden? How much cost? Those permitting authorities are the EPA and the 43 States that participate in the program. The EPA said that the burden ``could overwhelm permitting authorities.'' The net result of all of this is going to be thousands of jobs lost. According to the Heritage Foundation, the job losses are estimated to reach 800,000. Well, if Carol Browner, Administrator Jackson, or Mrs. McCarthy cannot tell us how they will protect American jobs from court challenges, if they can't tell us by what legal authority--legal authority--they can pick the winners and losers, if they cannot provide economic certainty to lenders and small businesses, if they do not know how they will process all the thousands of new preconstruction permits, then they should take this option--this option they have proposed, this option that kills jobs--and they should take it off the table. I have tried to get answers to these questions from the nominee who will most directly oversee this process--Mrs. McCarthy. I placed a hold on her nomination because these are questions that still need to be answered. I am committed to working with her in a constructive way to get answers to the questions because I believe we do need to chart a new course, a course that makes America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without hurting small businesses and without raising energy prices on American families. We should start by not taking any clean energy source off the table. That means fossil fuels fitting with new carbon capture technology. That means exploring for oil and natural gas in an environmentally friendly way, using new technologies. That means promoting carbon- neutral nuclear energy. That means funding renewable energies--wind and solar, geothermal, and hydropower. We need it all. An all-of-the-above energy approach is the key to solving our energy problem for this Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve this goal for America. Mr. President, I yield floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 100 years ago today, folks living in Glenrock, WY, voted to incorporate their town. While April 30, 1909, was Glenrock's official birthday, the town had been a vibrant and active place for decades prior. Pioneers traveling through the Wyoming territory in the late 1800s chose to stay in the sheltered area where Deer Creek met the Platte River. Deer Creek Station became a popular rendezvous for the wagon trains and settlers traveling westward on their way to a new life. Eventually, a community was formed. The settlers chose to call their town Glenrock, after a rock that was used by the pioneers as a landmark. Over the years, energy has been the backbone of Glenrock's economy. First coal, then oil, and now wind, providing energy to Wyoming and America is a history the people of Glenrock embrace. Today, the citizens of Glenrock kick off a year-long celebration of their community. I join them in honoring the brave pioneers who preceded them, and send best wishes as the town of Glenrock looks toward the next 100 years.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposal, a proposal finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare. The Washington Post has referred to this as a ``determination that could trigger a series of sweeping regulations affecting everything from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.'' According to legal experts, the scope of these regulations could cover hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and even nursing homes. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the EPA was not looking for a doomsday solution. Well, I have news for the administrator--this is one. In fact, this endangerment finding, once finalized, could cover any source that emits more than 250 tons per year of carbon dioxide. This is the limit expressly mentioned in the Clean Air Act. Hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and nursing homes will be required to obtain preconstruction permits for their activities. Further, according to the legal scholars, the statutory language is mandatory and does not leave any room for the EPA to exercise discretion or to create exemptions. The economic consequences of this will be great. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one-fifth of all food service businesses, one-third of all health care businesses, one-half of the entire lodging industry--all of those could be covered under the scope of the Clean Air Act. According to the Heritage Foundation, such regulations would lead to job losses that would exceed 800,000 jobs. I thought this administration was interested in creating jobs, not killing them. But that is what this ruling says. The gross domestic product lost to the country could be $7 trillion by the year 2029. In short, unless Congress acts, this administration is taking an enormous risk, an enormous economic gamble with the future of the American people. It is a bad bet, with no hope for any temperature reductions--which is what they are trying to do. The EPA Administrator has stated that she wants to avoid a regulatory thicket. If this approach is such a bad option, let's take it off the table. Why would the administration deliberately leave a bad option, a regulatory thicket for Americans, on the table? It makes no sense. It is for that reason that today I have sent a letter to President Obama asking that he take this option off the table. He must urge the Senate leadership and the House leadership right here to pass legislation to exempt the Clean Air Act from becoming a climate change tool. It is a bad option for Americans, and it is no option for America. The Administrator of the EPA has stated that, if necessary, she is poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule. I asked the EPA nominee, who will oversee the Clean Air Act, how this would be done. She responded that President George W. Bush's advance notice of proposed rulemaking laid out the options. This is the same advance notice of proposed rulemaking that has been so roundly criticized by the majority. I asked how the EPA would handle losing court challenges if the department tried to exempt farms and schools and hospitals and nursing homes and small businesses from the reach of the Clean Air Act. The nominee responded again that President Bush's rulemaking ``explored a number of possible ways of streamlining'' the Clean Air Act. This is not an answer at all. The American people need to know how they will be protected from the long arm of Washington. The EPA Administrator admits that a better option is to have Congress pass legislation to deal with climate change. The option on the table today is the President's energy tax. The President's energy tax is moving in the House of Representatives. It is called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The President's energy tax will fund a trillion-dollar climate bailout scheme--a bailout scheme that will not reduce global temperatures by even a single degree. Moving forward with a $1 trillion climate bailout scheme to avoid the Clean Air Act regulations is the legislative equivalent of moving the American taxpayers from the frying pan into the fire. This President's cap-and-trade scheme will dramatically raise prices on businesses as well as on consumers. It is bad for consumers, it is bad for jobs, and it is bad for our economy. We have passed numerous bailout bills over the past 6 months. We passed a $787 billion stimulus package for an economic bailout intended to save or create jobs. This is money we have been borrowing from China. They have such concerns they are not so interested in lending it to us anymore. The American people already have bailout and borrowing fatigue. We all know our deficits are soaring. We have saddled future generations with this debt for years to come. I hear that when I go to the schools and talk to the high school students. Spending trillions of additional dollars to address climate change through an untested cap-and-trade scheme is an unnecessarily risky approach. It, too, is a regulatory nightmare. This approach will cost thousands of jobs in the very same sectors that will be hit under the Clean Air Act. It is not a viable option, and it is not a responsible option. I call on the Senate leadership to expedite legislation to the President that takes the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating the climate. Let us come together and find a solution to our Nation's energy needs. With all seriousness, we need all of it, we need all the sources of energy because we will continue to use it all. We need a solution that makes American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and without hurting our economy. It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to get that message. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask to be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Mr. Dorgan, in introducing the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. This bill represents a bipartisan effort and crucial step in addressing a serious public safety crisis in many Indian communities throughout our Nation. During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held no less than seven hearings on the issue of law and order on Indian reservations. The committee found recurring themes of insufficient resources for law enforcement agencies, inadequate responses to criminal activity, and ineffective communication and coordination. Criminal elements are well aware of the conditions of near lawlessness in some reservation areas. With great regret, I point to the Wind River Indian Reservation of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho peoples in my home state of Wyoming as an example. The Wind River Indian Reservation consists of approximately 2.2 million acres and has a tribal population of over 11,000. During fiscal year 2008, the Wind River Indian Reservation had a violent crime rate that was 3.58 times the national crime rate, according to the crime reports published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior. Between 2007 and 2008, the crime rate on the Wind River Indian Reservation escalated from 677 to 748 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. Yet despite these troubling statistics, the Wind River Indian Reservation has only 9 law enforcement officers to cover all shifts. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 2008 crime report, an additional 22 police officers would be necessary to meet the minimum safety needs of this community. This situation would never be tolerated in other communities. We must address the needs for public safety, law enforcement and justice on Indian reservations head on. Senator Dorgan and I have worked together to ensure that this bill will assist in increasing the number of police officers on the ground. Through this bill we are sending a strong message that Indian reservations will not be a haven for criminal activity, drug trafficking, gangs, or abuse. We have set important goals for this legislation. To achieve them, we are proposing some significant changes to the status quo. As we move forward, I intend to solicit more input from stakeholders. The bill will inevitably require some modifications, and I look forward to that process. I consider the introduced legislation to be the beginning of a dialogue that will hopefully lead to refinement and improvement.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Mr. Dorgan, in introducing the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. This bill represents a bipartisan effort and crucial step in addressing a serious public safety crisis in many Indian communities throughout our Nation. During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held no less than seven hearings on the issue of law and order on Indian reservations. The committee found recurring themes of insufficient resources for law enforcement agencies, inadequate responses to criminal activity, and ineffective communication and coordination. Criminal elements are well aware of the conditions of near lawlessness in some reservation areas. With great regret, I point to the Wind River Indian Reservation of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho peoples in my home state of Wyoming as an example. The Wind River Indian Reservation consists of approximately 2.2 million acres and has a tribal population of over 11,000. During fiscal year 2008, the Wind River Indian Reservation had a violent crime rate that was 3.58 times the national crime rate, according to the crime reports published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior. Between 2007 and 2008, the crime rate on the Wind River Indian Reservation escalated from 677 to 748 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. Yet despite these troubling statistics, the Wind River Indian Reservation has only 9 law enforcement officers to cover all shifts. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 2008 crime report, an additional 22 police officers would be necessary to meet the minimum safety needs of this community. This situation would never be tolerated in other communities. We must address the needs for public safety, law enforcement and justice on Indian reservations head on. Senator Dorgan and I have worked together to ensure that this bill will assist in increasing the number of police officers on the ground. Through this bill we are sending a strong message that Indian reservations will not be a haven for criminal activity, drug trafficking, gangs, or abuse. We have set important goals for this legislation. To achieve them, we are proposing some significant changes to the status quo. As we move forward, I intend to solicit more input from stakeholders. The bill will inevitably require some modifications, and I look forward to that process. I consider the introduced legislation to be the beginning of a dialogue that will hopefully lead to refinement and improvement.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Johanns climate change amendment, No. 735. Budget reconciliation was designed to facilitate passage of legislation to reduce the deficit with a simple majority. It was never meant to pass major policy initiatives such as cap and trade. I was pleased to sign a letter written by both Senator Byrd and Senator Johanns opposing the idea of using budget reconciliation to pass climate change. The letter has broad bipartisan support. Cap and trade would be one of the most dramatic expansions of Government in American history. It is a trillion-dollar climate bailout scheme. This weekend, Thomas Friedman stated in the New York Times that ``we need a climate bailout along with our economic bailout.'' I tend to disagree. The American people, including my constituents in Wyoming, are very skeptical about any bailouts. So how important is climate change in the interest of the American people? The Pew Research Center did a poll and they showed that climate change ranked dead last with the public in terms of what was important to them. The American public is dealing with the reality of an economic meltdown. This is a real and immediate problem. Trillions of taxpayer dollars are being directed to stimulate the economy. Every step Congress takes to spend additional funds is being watched closely, as it should be, by the American public. We have passed numerous bailout bills over the past 6 months. We have just passed a $787 billion bailout for an economic plan intended to save or create millions of jobs. The American people deserve the opportunity to have any climate bailout go through the regular order. Frankly, the American people are demanding the opportunity to have a climate bailout go through regular order. Such legislation should not be enacted using procedures that limit debate and do not otherwise provide the kind of transparency the people of this country want and demand. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the Johanns amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I make a note that these appointments to the National Security Working Group were inadvertently left off the March 9, 2009, appointment to this group.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, in introducing Nos. 671, the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Lincoln has been a strong voice advocating for health care policies in the Senate that apply specifically to rural communities. I am proud to join her as we fight to ensure Medicare patients living in rural and in frontier States have access to and a choice of their mental health professionals. The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act will permit marriage and family therapists and licensed professional counselors to bill Medicare directly. These providers will then receive 75 percent of the rate that psychiatrists and psychologists receive for the same services. I want my colleagues to know that S. 671 does not expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare patients who are living in isolated frontier States, such as Wyoming, more choices for mental health providers. Today, approximately three-quarters of the nationally designated mental health professional shortage areas are located in rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more dramatic numbers--95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist, and 78 percent do not have a social worker. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area. In Wyoming, there is a total of 474 mental health providers who are currently eligible to care for Medicare patients and bill Medicare for their services--474. Additionally, we have over 500 licensed professional counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists who are currently licensed to practice. None of them are able, at this time, to charge Medicare for the services they provide. By enacting this Seniors Mental Health Access and Improvement Act, that would more than double-- more than double--the number of mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State. Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel great distances to see mental health providers who are currently recognized by the Medicare program. To make matters even more of a challenge, rural and frontier communities have a tough time recruiting and retaining these providers--all providers but especially mental health care providers. In many small towns, a licensed professional counselor or a marriage or family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare laws only compound the current situation. Right now, only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists can bill Medicare for mental health services. So it is time the Medicare Program recognizes the qualifications of licensed professional counselors and marriage and family therapists. They do play a crucial role in this Nation's mental health care. These providers go through rigorous training, and it is similar to the curriculum of a master's level social worker. They must not be excluded from the Medicare Program. I believe S. 671 is critically important to the health and the well-being of our Nation's seniors. It is time for this bill to become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business tomorrow be limited to 1 hour.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about this administration's proposed budget. I believe the President's proposed budget fails the American people. It fails small businesses, and it fails our economic future. To me, this budget spends too much on bailouts and on wasteful Government programs. It raises the cost of energy, and it costs American jobs. The spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates say they are going to need another quarter million people--250,000 more Federal Washington bureaucratic workers--just to spend all the money. Middle-class families and small businesses all across this country are taking notice. These are the people who are making the financial sacrifices every day to pay for these huge Government expenses. Yet Washington continues to spend trillions in taxpayers' dollars on bailouts and big Government programs. This budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. This budget contains the largest tax increase in the history of our country. We need to help American industry promote growth and create jobs. I will tell you that raising taxes makes matters worse, especially in an economic downturn. The President's plan takes money from small businesses and families in my home State of Wyoming. The President's budget will devastate the small businesses of America. The budget even limits itemized deductions for people who give money to charities. This effectively raises our Nation's top tax rate to 42 percent. Our Treasury Secretary Geithner says the proposed changes in the tax rates would apply to only 2 or 3 percent of small business owners. But the reality is, those tax increases are going to hit hardest those small businesses which create the most jobs in our Nation. Small businesses created a majority of new jobs in America over the last 10 years. Small businesses are responsible for 70 percent of the job creation in this Nation. These jobs are being created by businesses similar to those that are now threatened by the administration's proposed tax increases. When we consider that the administration talks about a goal of job creation, why is this administration proposing a budget with costly tax hikes on those very engines that create the jobs in this Nation? They say: We are going to delay the tax increases until 2010. That doesn't make those tax increases hurt any less. Small business owners plan ahead. They plan well in advance. They will not hire someone today if they know they are going to be forced to lay that person off in less than 2 years. I want to talk a little bit about electric bills. Electric bills and the cost of everything manufactured in America is going to skyrocket under this proposed budget. Under the Obama budget, gasoline prices are likely to go up as much as 145 percent. The President from Duke Energy says the plan could increase energy prices for American households by as much as 40 percent. People need to know under this plan, anything that emits carbon is going to be more expensive. This means the plastics we use, the cars we drive, the homes we heat--they are all going to be more expensive. Every time you flip the light switch, you are going to be paying much more. The very building blocks of our Nation will be dramatically taxed. American families will experience a dramatic shift down the economic ladder. Folks who are struggling to get by in my home State of Wyoming and all across America will fall through the cracks in this budget. It is wrong. It is time this administration leveled with the American people about the hidden details in this budget plan. The President is proposing we spend scarce resources transferring income rather than promoting growth. According to the President's climate proposal, taxes on carbon are projected to total over $78 billion in 2012 and at least $646 billion over the next 10 years. Of that money, he proposes to spend $1 out of every $5--only $1 of every $5--on clean energy technologies. The other $4 of every $5 are going to go to bigger Government programs. According to the President's budget document, his climate change proposal is more expensive than the $646 billion he has suggested. He is hiding the true cost to the economy of his cap-and-trade scheme. The President is also abandoning what I call 24-hour power. Under his cap-and-trade scheme, that is power that runs the factories and American homes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is the power we need when renewable energy is not there--when the Sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. We need all the energy. We need the coal. We need the nuclear. We need the natural gas. We need the hydropower. All are proven and affordable energy solutions. Those are the kinds of things that will help keep electric bills low. If you eliminate these, you are automatically taxing all Americans with high energy bills--that is what you are doing--and that means making the cost of running a business more expensive. That means heating homes all across America will be much more expensive. They have done some estimates, and they have estimated that the President's new energy tax will cost every household in America an additional $250--not each year but $250 each month. Frankly, that is a tax increase that most American people cannot afford, and, frankly, I don't understand why the President is asking them to pay it. In reality, the President's cap-and-trade scheme is another bailout, a trillion-dollar climate bailout. This budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. This budget costs too much in dollars, and it costs too much in jobs. This budget hurts small businesses, and it hurts American families alike. This budget provides for the largest tax increase in history to fund a trillion-dollar climate bailout. It is unfortunate that we are aiming and targeting small businesses because they are the very foundation of job creation in this country. It is unfortunate that this is the starting point of the debate of how to get our economy moving again. The American people expect better. The American people demand better. The American people deserve better. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.