Floor Statements

I believe my friend from Utah is absolutely correct. There is a creditability gap here. These modest cuts should prompt Washington to take a closer look at how we spend taxpayers' money. I saw today that the White House is now--they claim because of the sequester--canceling White House tours. It is astonishing when they say they will not cut the personnel there in terms of the security, but they will cancel the tours. I would invite people from all around the country who are planning a trip to Washington to come to the Senate, come to the House, and come to the Capitol. We will make sure they receive tours if they would like.

Talk about a loss of credibility. The Washington Post evaluates statements of folks, and over the last week they have given Pinocchios for those who are not telling the truth. There has been a parade of Pinocchios--a dozen of these Pinocchios that were given. One statement is the President's false claim on Friday during his news conference that Capitol janitors will be receiving a pay cut. They gave him four Pinocchios for that. It is not true.

``The threat to free meals for seniors,'' there are Pinocchios there. The false claim of pink slips for teachers by the Secretary of Education, another four Pinocchios. There are two Pinocchios for the claim that ``up to 70,000 children would lose access to Head Start and early Head Start services.''

The Senator from Utah mentioned the concerns about the FAA with furloughs and closed air towers. The verdict is still pending on that. There is a parade of Pinocchios for the administration at a time when the American people know so much of their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

I traveled around Wyoming this past weekend, and people at home think that at least half of the money they send to Washington is wasted. It is time now to take an opportunity to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. We should streamline the Federal bureaucracy. We should make government programs more efficient. We should be more thoughtful in terms of how targeted cuts will work to ensure vital programs continue without interruption.

At the end of the day, we should make sure taxpayers are getting value for their hard-earned dollars. The administration does not see it that way at all. Instead of promoting responsible spending, the administration is promoting panic.

As Senator Lee pointed out, the administration is threatening the American people with pink slips for teachers, cuts to airport security, cuts to the Coast Guard patrols, cutting border patrol and enforcement, closing national parks, cutting food safety inspections, eliminating Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and the list goes on.

We need to be honest with the American people that we are $16.5 trillion in debt. That is not a threat; it is the truth. We can no longer afford to ignore the truth. Washington is burying our children and grandchildren under a mountain of debt, and if we don't treat Washington's spending addiction, the problem is just going to get worse. We must not allow the debt to tie the hands of future generations and prevent them from reaching their dreams.

I believe we have to take responsibility for the reality we are facing and we have to take action to change the course we are on. Of course, that means difficult decisions have to be made, but these decisions don't need to be reckless. They don't need to be dangerous. They don't need to imperil our students, teachers, military, senior citizens or our national security. They need to be smart, they need to be targeted, and they need to maximize the value of each dollar spent and minimize the risks and burdens to taxpayers.

I say to my colleague from Utah that instead of hitting taxpayers where they will feel it the most, the administration has an obligation and a responsibility to work hard to cut spending where the need is the least. I know the leadership the Senator from Utah has shown on ``Cut this, not that'' is something I think Americans would agree with completely.

I appreciate the question. My friend is absolutely correct. The cuts threatened by the administration simply defy common sense and logic. Despite claims to the contrary, the President actually does have a choice. He can take a thoughtful, reasoned approach to implementing the sequester by cutting wasteful spending that we all know exists or he can continue to threaten and scare the American people with needless cuts to vital programs and services.

I put together a list of a few places where I would encourage the President to look for reasonable cuts because there are so many programs that are inefficient, ineffective or overlap with other programs. There are over 80 economic development programs that operate out of 4 different Cabinet agencies: the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Small Business.

There are 173 programs promoting science, technology, engineering, and math education across 13 agencies. These are important, but do we need 173 programs when one department of the government doesn't know what the other one is doing?

There are 20 agencies that oversee more than 50 financial literacy programs. There are more than 50 programs supporting entrepreneurs across 4 different departments of government. There are 47 different job training programs. Is job training important? Absolutely. There are 47 different programs, 9 different agencies, and it cost $18 billion in fiscal year 2009. Out of 47 programs, only 5 of them have had an impact study completed since 2004 to see if they actually work and whether participants in the program actually get a job. These have not been reviewed since 2004. Do we know they work? Do we need 47? Could they be improved upon?

We are looking at this sequester. The President proposed this sequester. The President signed the sequester into law, and now he claims he cannot live with the effects. I am here to say he is wrong. Responsibly implementing the cuts from the sequester is not only possible, I believe it is necessary, as we see here: ``Cut this, not that.''

This debate is not about--as we read in the Washington Post--the President trying to force it to an election to the House of Representatives in 2014, it is about the economy and the future of our country. It is not just about smaller government, it is about smarter government. People think they are not getting value for their money.

I believe it is past the time for Washington to take the smarter approach to our Nation's spending addiction, and I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Utah.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the policy changes and choices made in Washington and how they affect the spending and the well-being of so many people all around this great country. There has been a great deal of talk recently about how we can get our out-of-control Washington spending under control. How can we curb spending?

We also need to keep in mind some of the policies of the Obama administration and how they have impacted spending and how they have created economic conditions that have forced many of these hard choices to be made by American families. I believe our weak economic recovery is a result of bad policy choices that have cost Americans their jobs, and it has cost them dollars--money--they cannot spare.

The list of the administration's bad policy choices is long and, in my opinion, right at the top of that list is the President's health care law. Last week, we learned from a GAO study requested by Senator Sessions that the President's health care law will add $6.2 trillion to Washington's debt. Of course, that is debt on the back of every young person in America and on the back of future generations. It is a debt upon the entire Nation.

It is also adding to the financial burden in this country. Recently, the Obama administration has released more rules for how this health care law will be implemented. The new regulations that have just come out lay out something called ``essential benefits.'' These are the government-mandated items that health care policies will now have to offer.

Along with other parts of the health care law, these new rules will raise the premiums American families pay for their health coverage. That is not what the American people wanted, that is not what they were promised by the President, and that is not what they need during this difficult economic time.

Remember, President Obama promised that under his health care plan insurance premiums, he said, would go down $2,500 for the average family by the end of his first term. That has come and gone, but what the President promised the American people has not happened. Instead, premiums have gone up by an average of more than $3,000 family.

As more provisions of the law kick in, I can tell you it is going to get worse. As the Obama administration puts out more regulations, premiums are going to continue to go up and up. The American people are in for a serious case of premium sticker shock.

This is especially true for young people, people in their twenties, people in their thirties. That is not just my prediction. It is the warning we are getting from State officials who actually supported the President's health care law. Of course, they supported it before they knew what was in it.

The State insurance commissioner in Oregon has said the new regulations could push up premiums for young consumers by as much as 30 percent next year. According to a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, that was not an accident. It was an intentional effect of trying to lower prices for older Americans by raising the prices for younger people. In fact, the cost-shifting was a top priority of the AARP during the debate.

Of course, I believe the administration was not honest about it. They did not come out and tell young people: Hey, you are going to have to pay a

higher premium so someone else pays less. No. Democrats in Congress and the White House tried to say young people were going to pay lower prices, but now we are seeing it was never true.

The premium increases are also going to be worse if you do not get insurance through your employer. That is because you may end up in the individual market. A recent Gallup poll found that fewer people are getting their insurance through work. Just since 2008, the number has dropped significantly. Among people between the ages of 18 and 25 years old, only 32 percent now get their health insurance through work.

Healthier people--people who take the time to focus on staying healthy--are actually going to pay more too. Even if you eat a good diet, you exercise, you do the things people would be encouraged to do so they do not get sick, you are going to pay more under the President's health care law.

According to a new survey of insurance companies, younger and healthier customers can expect premium increases of 169 percent, on average, in 2014. That is in the individual market, that more people will find themselves forced into as their employers drop coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office says that even when you take into account the subsidies some of these people will get under the law, premiums will still go up an average of 10 to 13 percent even after the subsidies are applied.

If that happens, a family buying coverage on its own may end up paying $2,100 a year more because of the health care law. You might ask yourself, why are the premiums going up so fast? It is because of the law's new requirements.

For one thing, there is something called the essential health benefits. We just got new rules on these from the administration. Those are the specific mandates that require insurance plans to cover a wide range of services. For most consumers it is going to mean a more extensive and longer list of benefits. That might sound good, but they may be for things the consumers do not want. It does not matter. Under the law, the consumers have to pay for them. It is still higher costs-- much higher costs. People cannot just get the insurance they and their family want, that is right for them, and they can afford. No, that is not enough. They must buy Obama administration-approved health insurance. That is what they have to buy. That is what the law says, and it is going to be much more expensive than what they might want, they might need or they can afford and think is good for them.

Families are going to have to pay for insurance that covers the whole laundry list of benefits, whether they want them or not. Why should the government--Washington--tell a single 33-year-old man he has to pay for ovarian cancer screening? Why should someone without children have to pay for a plan that covers pediatric eye exams? Even the American Academy of Ophthalmology has said that requirement goes too far. They are worried that once insurance has to cover it, there will be overuse of comprehensive eye exams on children who do not even need them. Of course, that may happen. If it is covered by insurance, people are going to want more of it. That drives up health care costs, and health insurance costs go up even more.

To make matters worse, the law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to update the list of these benefits every year. These are the benefits you still may not want--certainly do not want to be forced to pay for--but you are stuck with them now. We all know this list is not going to get any shorter. It is going to grow longer, and the costs are going to continue to go up.

That is what has happened at the State level. Health insurance mandates in some States now include everything from circumcisions to breast implant removal, and mandates add anywhere from 10 to 50 percent to the cost of insurance.

It is no way to run a health care program. Consumers should decide what benefits they want, what benefits they think they may need, not Washington bureaucrats.

Finally, I will give just one more example of how the new rules will drive up premiums. This has to do with new age rating rules in the law. The age rating limits the amount premiums can vary between healthy younger individuals and unhealthy older consumers. This is the most direct way Democrats are taxing the young to pay for everyone else.

Under the President's health care law, the premium charged to a sicker older person cannot be more than three times what a healthy 21- year-old has to pay. So those younger people are going to end up paying more. Rather than pay the higher cost, many younger people will just not purchase insurance at all. They will just pay the law's tax penalty instead. That is because it is still cheaper than the insurance premiums that have been driven up due to the President's health care law. That means premiums will go up even faster for the people left in the insurance pool, and the whole thing will keep spiraling out of control.

The White House says it will not budge on these age-rating rules. So people in their twenties and thirties and early forties should just prepare themselves now for the premium hikes they are going to see under the President's health care law.

Those are just a few of the new rules and just a few of the ways the health care law continues to raise costs and raise premiums for hard- working Americans. It seems to me the President is still in his campaign mode, so he will not admit it, but he is not fooling anybody.

I recently completed a statewide tour of Wyoming. I visited a dozen towns across the State and met with hundreds of people. I can tell you, in those meetings, people still say the health care law is unworkable, it is unaffordable, and it remains very unpopular.

The people of Wyoming, as did people across the country, knew what they wanted from health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. What they got were higher premiums, higher taxes, and more government control over their personal health care decisions.

When the new rules were released 1 week ago, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said: ``Being sick will no longer keep you, your family, or your employees from being able to get affordable health coverage.''

What she should have added was: The President's own health care law will be the thing that keeps people from getting affordable coverage.

The law that was passed was the wrong solution and the wrong way to reform our health care in this country. Hard-working American families cannot afford it, and they deserve better.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, if I may join in this discussion--and it is wonderful to see the bipartisan nature of this discussion, to turn and look around the floor of this Chamber and see three Democratic Senators talking to this issue and three Republican Senators talking to the same issue and agreeing, because all of us are like-minded in the fact that when we think of energy--and the Keystone XL Pipeline is a big part of that--we think of energy security for our Nation, which is part of this, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. We just heard from one Alaskan Senator and the other Alaskan Senator will speak shortly.

We hear what a wonderful job people continue to do in one of the most pristine areas of the country, the State of Alaska. I will tell my colleagues, as a Senator from Wyoming, an energy capital of this Nation, that energy is a big part of our economy but so is tourism. If we did things that did not focus on environmental stewardship for our own State, it would impact our tourism. Energy is a big part of the economy, so we want to have economic growth, energy security, as well as environmental stewardship.

But I will tell my colleagues it has been a difficult task based on some of the regulatory obstacles to energy development. The President likes to talk about how he supports all-of-the-above American energy development. But, in fact, we heard him the other night during the State of the Union Address. His actions over the past 4 years tell a completely different story. Instead of making it easier for our own country to produce energy, I believe he has made it harder.

If we look at the folks who are leaving his administration: The EPA's Director, Lisa Jackson, she said the EPA's role is, interestingly, ``to level the playing field against fossil fuels.'' Secretary Chu, who is leaving the administration, said he would ``boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Secretary Salazar, who is leaving, continues to talk about the fact that the energy strategy, he says, showed good results, but they have restricted access to Federal offshore and onshore oil and gas resources through moratoriums, through blocking permits, through leasing plans. They have denied Americans billions in public revenue and thousands of jobs.

I stand here saying that the Keystone XL Pipeline is a perfect example of the Obama administration's pattern of delaying good projects by requiring excessive redtape.

So I come here with the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska--and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership, for his determination, for his courage, and for his fortitude--in fighting to make sure we as a country continue to strive for American energy security. That is exactly what we are going to have with this proposal.

I call on the administration today--the President, as well as the new Secretary of State--to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to allow that energy--which is either coming here to the United States or going to China or elsewhere--to approve it to come to the United States, to help our production, to help our consumers, to help our jobs in this country. Those are the things that are important as we try to focus on energy security for our Nation, economic growth for our Nation, as well as environmental stewardship.

So I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership.

I see now the ranking member of the Energy Committee is here with us as well, who has done a masterful job with a visioned ``Energy 20/20.'' For people who have not seen it, I would say they are missing something--if they have not really read through it--from the Senator from Alaska because she has focused like a laser on these three E's of energy security, economic growth, and environmental stewardship.

So I thank both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, for their leadership.

Mr. President, I rise today as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for more than 25 years, and I rise to continue the debate we have been having in this body about the President's health care law.

Although there has been significant debate and discussion, what I have continued to try to do is discuss some of the many ways in which this law falls short of its goals and falls way short of what the American public has asked for when it comes to the need for health care reform.

The Obama administration continues to put significant effort into trying to sell its health care law and tries to convince people that it is the answer to all of their problems. But in the words of John Adams, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

Despite all the spin of this administration, the American people continue to learn the facts--the facts about just how bad this law is and how much it is going to cost them personally in terms of finances and personally in terms of their own health care. That is why the President's health care law continues, this day, to be unworkable, unpopular, and absolutely unaffordable.

We saw another example of this recently when one group who had previously supported the law learned more about what is in it.

Back when we were debating the bill originally, labor unions around the country were among the biggest backers of the law. Unions sent their lobbyists up here to press their Democratic supporters to pass the law. They put out many statements saying things like, ``We need this health care law now.'' They held rallies right out in front of the Capitol.

We saw the same kinds of demonstrations last spring when the Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the law. Now, I went to the oral arguments, and I remember one group of

union members chanting: ``We love ObamaCare.''

Well, apparently now, today, I will tell you, the love is gone. According to a recent front-page article in the Wall Street Journal, some union leaders now say that ``many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive.''

Republicans said the President's plan would drive up costs for hard- working Americans from the beginning. Union leaders absolutely ignored our warnings and supported the law anyway. Now we have been proven right, and we are seeing buyer remorse by a lot of the law's supporters. This was absolutely predictable. What is really interesting is the reaction. It is clear from that Journal article that many union leaders are angry and disappointed.

Well, union leaders should be angry. The Obama administration misled them into believing their members could keep the health care plan they had. They should be angry with President Obama. They were deliberately deceived when he promised repeatedly, saying health insurance costs would go down $2,500 for the average family by today.

The unions are also now lobbying the Obama administration to do an end-run around the law. The Wall Street Journal quoted union leaders saying that they were going to push the Obama administration to now subsidize their health insurance costs. Now disturbing comments come from the administration suggesting it might be willing to do just that.

Unions have focused their efforts on trying to get the administration to expand access to advanced premium tax credits. The subsidies were intended only for people who cannot get insurance through their employers. That is how it was set up. Well, that means union members who have insurance for a plan jointly run by the union and their employers are not eligible for the subsidies.

The law is crystal clear. In fact, the law lays out four conditions for getting the tax credit: You have to get insurance through the exchange, either a State exchange or the Federal exchange; you have to pay the premiums yourself; you must not be eligible for minimum essential coverage other than the plans offered in the individual market; and you must not be enrolled in an eligible employer-sponsored plan. Those are all four. That is it. So union workers covered by their employer or by a joint plan from their employer and the union do not meet these four criteria.

Let's go back to Nancy Pelosi and that famous quote: ``First you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it.'' The union bosses should have read the bill before they decided to support it. And if they had read the bill, they would have been smart to oppose it.

Despite the clear law, a spokesman for the Treasury Department told the Wall Street Journal that ``these matters are the subject of pending regulations.'' Amazingly, one of the lobbyists for the union said the administration can ``create a loophole for them through Federal rule- making.'' Create a loophole for the unions. Create a loophole.

Well, that is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. The administration has no legal authority to expand access to health insurance subsidies under the law. This is not a matter of regulation, it is a matter of the law. It was a bad law--bad law as it was being adopted, bad law as it was being signed. It is full of unintended consequences. This particular consequence was spelled out unambiguously. Last week, 31 Republican Senators wrote to remind the President of that fact.

Of course, it is not just union members who are disturbed by the law's effects on health care costs. Numerous reports have pointed out that costs will continue to rise when more of the health care law's mandates kick in next January. One study estimates that healthier people are going to see their insurance costs go up by 40 percent to cover the cost of insuring less healthy people. The law's requirements on caps on medical benefits will also cause an increase in premiums. So will the requirements that adults up to age 26 be allowed to stay on their parent's plan.

Late last year, Blue Shield of California asked for permission to raise its rates by as much as 20 percent. The CEO of Aetna said rates in some areas could go up as much as 100 percent. That is on top of the premium increase of more than $3,000 the average family has seen since President Obama took office.

We have got to lower the cost of health care. President Obama and the Democrats who voted for this piece of legislation in the House and in the Senate promised the law would do that. Well, it has not done it. It will not do it. Their plan was short on reform and long on budget tricks and accounting gimmicks and on empty promises.

The cost concerns the unions raise are absolutely legitimate. I share those concerns and so do all of the Senators on this side of the aisle. But we cannot give extra benefits to union members. The problem is not that the law makes union health benefits more expensive; the problem is the President's health care law makes everyone's health insurance more expensive. The answer is to control costs for everyone, not just for special-interest groups with friends in the White House.

We need to revisit the taxes, the fees, and the other policies that drive premium increases. We need real health care reform in this country, reform that gives people the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost.

When we were debating the President's health care law, some of us warned about the danger of writing a bill behind closed doors. Actually, the President warned about the danger of writing a bill behind closed doors until he decided that was exactly what he wanted to do. So he sent his Chief of Staff to do just what he said would be dangerous, write a law behind closed doors.

Some of us were concerned about the special deals for special groups. Of course, these were special deals that would harm health care for the rest of us. President Obama and Democrats in Congress rejected our concerns. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass the law so we can see what is in it. Well, the American people now are seeing more and more of what is in the law, and they do not like what they see. Now they are calling for all of us to do something about it. This is not the time for special-interest loopholes. It is not the time to make more deals behind closed doors. It is not the time to hand out breaks for one favored group at the expense of everyone else.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a conference of the Wyoming American Legion. Many of the veterans I spoke with remain very concerned about their health care and specifically about the impacts of the Obama health care law on their lives and on their health.

The men and women whom I met with are very worried they may lose their health coverage. Why? Because of the law. They wonder what happened to the insurance premium cuts they were supposed to have gotten by now--not in the future but promised to have gotten by now.

These men and women have not gotten many of the benefits they were told to expect, but what they are getting are all the costs. That is why the people I talk with every weekend at home in Wyoming understand what the Democrats in Washington still will not admit: that the President's health care law remains unworkable, unpopular, and absolutely unaffordable.

Remember when the President promised that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? Well, all of America now knows it was an empty promise, just as when President Obama promised health insurance premiums would go down. Over and over, the President said that his law would lower premiums by $2,500 a family by the end of his first term in office. The President has not talked much about that lately. I did not hear anything about it in his inaugural address, and I do not expect to hear very much about it in his State of the Union Address. It is because average premiums across the country for families have not gone down--not by the $2,500 that the President promised, not by even $1,000, not even by a cent. Instead, average family premiums have actually gone up by more than $3,000 during the President's first term. That is a pretty big math error on the part of President Obama, and the American people, unfortunately, are the ones who have to pay for his mistake.

Because of his policies, health insurance is a lot less affordable for a lot of people and for a lot of small businesses. Now many small businesses are facing what is turning out to be an impossible decision. If they expand their business and cross the law's threshold of 50 employees, they will be subject to the employer insurance mandate. If they choose not to expand, then they are holding back potential growth and the opportunities that come with it. In this current economic environment, the last thing we should be doing is making it more difficult for businesses to expand and hire more people. But because of the President's health care law, that is exactly what is happening.

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece recently about a small business owner named Carl Schanstra. He owns a parts assembly factory near Chicago, IL. It is called Automation Systems LLC.

Sales have been growing, and the business is doing well, but he has a problem because he already employs close to 50 people. That means he is getting dangerously close to the law's threshold and the new health care burdens it would place on him, including all the expenses.

As he puts it, he says: ``I'll be hammered for having more people at work.'' The cost of providing insurance would be enormous. The cost of paying the tax penalty for not offering insurance would also be enormous.

That is not a good option for a small business such as Automation Systems--a small business that wants to expand, a small business that has an opportunity to expand and hire more people. So he has to look for ways to stay under the law's limits.

He plans to raise prices to give himself a buffer against the new health care law, and he may even have to break his company into two different companies so they can stay below the limits. He may avoid hiring more people or buy more machinery to replace some of the workers.

A rational and responsible business owner wants to make decisions based on what is best for the business and its employees. Now we have business owners having to make these decisions based on the crushing regulatory burden imposed upon them by Washington.

Carl is not the only business owner who is having to face tough choices because of the health care law. According to a new survey Gallup put out last week, more than half of small business owners say health care costs and taxes are hurting them a lot. Those two things-- health care costs and taxes--led the list of their concerns by a wide margin. When Gallup looked specifically at businesses that were not hiring, 61 percent of them--nearly two out of every three--said it was because of the potential cost of health care.

Washington should be creating policies that encourage businesses to hire and making hiring easier. Again, that is what our economy needs to recover. Instead, this administration has been piling up more costs, more regulations, and more ways to discourage hiring.

That is one person's story. But just down the road from where Carl is trying to do what is best for his business and his workers, the city of Chicago itself is facing some of the same concerns. Chicago has decided it cannot afford to pay the health care costs of its retired city workers. So what is the whole city of Chicago going to do? Well, it is looking at dumping those former workers into the ObamaCare exchange. It would save the city a lot of money, but the taxpayers of Illinois and every other State would have to make up the tab because the city is trying to skip out on paying their own bill.

Federal subsidies for Chicago retirees would be $44 million in 2014, and that amount would only grow over time. Of course, we know the mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel. He was one of the main figures in the room where ObamaCare was being written, and we

all know--all of America knows--that room was behind closed doors. He knew exactly the kinds of incentives the law was creating. He also knew exactly how many people would be affected. And he knew how people such as him could use the law to push health care costs onto someone else.

Chicago takes that step today. Other cities might be right behind and waiting to do the same thing tomorrow and the day after that, and so on.

We need to reduce health care costs in America. But all we do and all we see is cost-shifting, robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need businesses to hire people so our economy can grow. Those businesses are holding back because of the health care law. We need to reduce Washington's out-of-control spending. But cities such as Chicago are trying to shift their health care costs to hard-working taxpayers elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate and the White House refuse to accept that we have any problem at all with entitlement spending and the budget deficits we are looking at. It is time for Democrats to take their head out of the sand, to admit that the President's health care law did not solve our problems; in fact, it made things worse.

Then I picked up the paper this morning--today's Wall Street Journal--and a front-page headline is: ``Some Unions Grow Wary Of Health Law They Backed.'' We all remember the days when unions lobbied for this health care law. Their Web sites said: We need this health care law now. They came to Capitol Hill, lobbying here, members having rallies.

Well, let me read some of the beginning of the article that is on the front page of today's paper.

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama

administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for

debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning

sour.

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements--

Many of the law's requirements--

will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make

unionized workers less competitive.

So there we have it. We have what happens to a small business, why the health care law is hurting it. We see how the city of Chicago is responding to the perverse incentives in the health care law to force its costs onto other hard-working taxpayers, and now we see the very unions that supported the health care law during the lobbying phase and during the time of the vote now saying the law's requirements are going to drive up the cost for their health care plans.

It just seems it is time for people on Capitol Hill to realize how bad this health care law is. We need real entitlement reform that preserves vital safety net programs for future generations. We need real health care reform that gives people the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost.

President Obama continues to give the American people and give all of us empty promises. Congress should give hard-working American taxpayers the solutions they expect and they deserve.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I agree completely with my colleague, who has really shown significant leadership in this area, worked closely on it. He has been a Governor for two terms, knows about appointments, knows about advice and consent.

What we have seen from this President of the United States, just last January, is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and the laws of this land by bypassing the Senate and appointing three members to the National Labor Relations Board, claiming--claiming--the Senate was in recess, even though the Senate was meeting regularly in pro forma sessions. So last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously--unanimously--that those unilateral appointments were unconstitutional.

It is interesting because I saw the whip of the Senate Democrats on one of the television shows this weekend, and he said: Well, we need to make sure people have plenty of time for hearings. They did not have hearings.

Madam President, the Democrats are in control of the Senate. They could have called hearings but chose not to. The President let these vacancies sit for long periods of time, and only in the middle of December of 2011 did he even put names up and then summarily, just a few weeks later, went and unilaterally appointed them. The Senate was really never consulted. The Senate did not have an opportunity to advise and consent. That is why I use the word ``flagrant'' in terms of the President's bypassing of the Senate in making these alleged recess appointments.

Well, over the weekend, newspapers across this country reported on this consequential ruling by the court and what it will mean for the administration going forward.

The Wall Street Journal called it ``Obama's Abuse of Power''--abuse-- abuse of power.

Politico said: ``President Obama's Recess Appointment Bet Sours.''

Investor's Business Daily reported: ``Court Finally Reins in Obama's Imperial Presidency.''

The Washington Post explained: ``Court Says Obama Exceeded Authority in Making Appointments.''

The Los Angeles Times reported: ``Court Rules Obama's Recess [Appointments] Are Illegal''--illegal.

After we go on reading through all of this, after this court ruling, the White House should finally realize--finally realize--that the President's power to use recess appointments is not unlimited.

The court's decision reaffirms that America's Founding Fathers provided the Senate--the Senate--a responsibility, a duty to advise and consent, and they did it with the strong, coequal responsibility on important nominations.

Well, let's take a look at what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia actually ruled when they talked about the President's so-called recess appointments.

The court said:

An interpretation of ``the Recess'' that permits the

President to decide when the Senate is in recess would

demolish--

``Demolish,'' the court said--

the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent

requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his

desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be

a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and

he is merely displeased with its inaction.

The court went on to say: ``This cannot be the law.''

I agree completely with the court, which is why I am here on the floor of the Senate with my colleagues. Senator Johanns, also a former Governor, is with us today. These are individuals who understand the importance of advice and consent. And again, as to Senator Johanns, he has been a Cabinet member. He has been subjected to the process of advice and consent, and he knows how important that is in the balance of power, in how Washington and our Nation are supposed to work by the Constitution.

As the court wrote, ``Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers.''

The court added, ``It would make little sense to extend [the recess appointment authority] to any intrasession break'' because the ability to make recess appointments would swallow the advice-and-consent role of the Senate.

Because of the President's illegitimate appointments, the NLRB is now operating under a cloud of uncertainty all across the country in all of their regulations and rules. That is why shortly after the appointments, the President's appointees to the NLRB--Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin--began issuing orders and opinions in labor disputes. So they have been doing that now for over a year.

All of those decisions that the Board issued by a quorum made up by those members--there were over 200 of those rulings coming out in the past year--are subject to challenge and to invalidation. We have heard from Senator Alexander on one of those having to do with micro unions. Another had to do with collection of union dues even after the contracts had expired. On and on and on, numbers of rulings, over 200 have been made. They are all subject to challenge and invalidation because there was no legitimate quorum for the National Labor Relations Board. At this moment it is practically impossible for anyone to know which NLRB decisions are valid and which are not. It is my opinion that none of them should be valid. But it is time to stop this regulatory train wreck from getting any worse. That is why this week I am introducing a bill that will freeze any decisions, any regulations, any rulings made by this unconstitutionally appointed and invalid quorum of the National Labor Relations Board. Until we have final resolution from the courts, the NLRB should not be able to move forward and create even more uncertainty across this country.

We would not be in this position if the President of the United States had done what legally he is mandated to

do, which is work with Congress and follow the Constitution. I hope that court ruling serves as a wakeup call for President Obama and for his entire administration. Instead of going around Congress, instead of going around the Constitution, it is time for the Obama administration to work with us on nominations.

I see the Senator from Nebraska is here, the former Governor, former Cabinet member. I look forward to hearing his comments as well.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 3:30 p.m. today, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Madam President, I rise today to, No. 1, welcome you and welcome all of the other new Senators who have just joined this historic body.

Along with the rest of us, you have all watched the difficult negotiations over the fiscal cliff that dominated the last few weeks of the 112th Congress. That debate was an important opportunity to talk to the American people about Washington's addiction to spending. We made clear in that debate that no amount of tax increases--no amount--would come close to wiping out Washington's debt. So as we begin the 113th Congress, we are faced with fresh opportunities to continue that conversation with the American people.

This time the debate is over whether to raise the Nation's debt limit. Last week, the President opened negotiations on this important issue by saying that he wouldn't negotiate. He did not announce this by calling the Republicans in Congress; he did it, instead, by calling a press conference.

In the last days of 2012, President Obama, in my opinion, failed to lead in the talks over avoiding the fiscal cliff. Now the President plans not to lead on the Nation's debt limit either. Whether the President leads, follows, or just gets out of the way, Washington needs real budget reform. We can't continue President Obama's pattern of untold trillions of dollars in wasteful government spending.

Over the past 4 years, President Obama has added so much to our national debt that he has already had to increase our Nation's debt limit four separate times. This includes the two largest increases in our history. No other President of the United States has needed an increase of over $1 trillion. President Obama has asked for that much twice. While he once promised to cut the deficit in half by now, he has done just the opposite. He has added as much debt in 4 years as all the previous Presidents racked up in our country's first 225 years.

President Obama has maxed out the national credit card and now he wants a new one. In return, the President isn't willing to offer any commitments that he will try to be more responsible with that next credit card. In fact, under his latest budget, the President wants to add another $6.4 trillion to our debt over the next 5 years. That is the wrong direction for our Federal budget and for the Nation's future.

The President could take this opportunity to reassure hardworking American taxpayers, as well as world financial markets, that he is finally serious about reining in Washington's out-of-control spending. Instead, he has chosen to try to score political points.

This isn't the first time the President has voiced an opinion on the debt limit debate. Last December, he spoke on this subject as he, in my opinion, misrepresented decades of precedence regarding congressional consideration of the debt limit. He said that connecting debt ceiling votes and budget negotiations--connecting debt ceiling votes and budget negotiations--was something that ``we had never done in our history until we did it last year.''

That statement is false. Frankly, we should be talking about responsible spending reform every time we debate any measure in Congress that involves spending money. We should certainly do it when we are debating borrowing more money.

The debt limit has been used at least 20 times in the past 60 years specifically tied to debating fiscal reform. For example, in 1954, Congress passed a temporary increase specifically as a way to control future finances. In 1967, the House actually defeated a debt limit increase so that it could force President Johnson to quit using some of the budget tricks he had been using. In 1970, the debate over the debt limit included amendments to cut defense spending, imposing a spending cap, and freezing congressional pay until Congress passed a balanced budget.

In 1983, Congress actually defeated a debt limit increase bill. Senator Russell Long, a Democrat, told his colleagues if they voted for the increase, ``you are voting to continue the biggest deficits in the history of this country as far as the eye can see.''

Incidentally, the debt at that time was $1.3 trillion. That is about how much we have added to our debt every year since President Obama was sworn in for the first time. Democrats balked at Washington having a debt over $1.3 trillion back then. Today, the President says Republicans are doing something irresponsible for even wanting to talk about a debt of more than $16.4 trillion.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I think you have the idea. The President says it is unprecedented for us to even ask to have this debate. Well, the President is not correct. It is not unprecedented. It is actually very common and absolutely appropriate.

There is nobody on the Republican side of the aisle here in the Senate who is saying we should not pay our bills. There is also nobody on this side of the aisle who thinks we should keep wasting taxpayer dollars without even trying to act responsibly and slow down Washington's spending. Yes, the debt limit is about paying for past obligations, but our history shows the debate

over the debt limit is an absolutely appropriate time to talk about reforming Washington's future spending.

President Obama agreed to spending cuts the last time he asked for an increase in the debt limit. Now the President says he wants his credit limit increased without any effort to reduce future spending. And, of course, we all remember when he was a Senator he spoke out against raising the debt limit. He once called the need to increase the debt limit ``a failure of leadership.'' But that was then. This is now.

The White House has floated gimmicks such as issuing a $1 trillion coin or using the 14th amendment to raise the debt limit without congressional approval. And now the President won't negotiate responsible spending at all. His policies--his policies of the past 4 years--have buried our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt. America needs real budget reform, but President Obama insists on playing politics with our country's credit rating. Hard-working American taxpayers have to balance their budgets. They understand what the President does not.

The President bragged in his press conference last week that ``it's been a busy and productive 4 years, and I expect the same for the next 4 years.'' Well, it looks like he means we can count on 4 more years of wasteful Washington spending.

This has to stop. It is time for President Obama to finally keep his promise to get America's finances in order.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I agree with the views expressed by my good friends from Arizona and Tennessee. They and I, and our Democratic colleagues, worked in good faith on the concepts embodied in the order the Senate has just adopted. I am hopeful that the majority will use the procedures in this order in harmony with our good intentions. If not, I will oppose cloture on legislation or nominations.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding orthopaedic surgeon, mentor and friend. Dr. Wayne Southwick has had a remarkable career. The author of over 100 peer reviewed journal articles, he has also received numerous awards for his work as a professor and chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale University's School of Medicine. I had the privilege of learning from Dr. Southwick during my time at Yale. Dr. Southwick's unending dedication to educating the next generation of physicians has had a lasting impact on the medical profession.

Dr. Wayne Orin Southwick was born on February 6, 1923 in Lincoln, NE. He grew up in Friend, the same small town where his grandfather settled, just before Nebraska was admitted to the Union. Dr. Southwick attended high school in Friend, before entering the University of Nebraska, where he earned a B.A. in 1945 and an M.D. in 1947. During his time at the University of Nebraska, Dr. Southwick married the love of his life, Jessie Ann Seacrest.

While the vast majority of my remarks will focus on Dr. Southwick's professional accomplishments, I know that what he is most proud of is his loving family. Together, Wayne and Ann raised three children, Fred, Steven and Marcia. Steven has followed in his father's footsteps as a physician and professor of psychiatry at Yale. Wayne would be the first person to admit that all of his accomplishments would not have been possible without the support of his wife and children.

After graduation from medical school, the Southwick family moved to Boston, where Dr. Southwick completed an internship at Boston City Hospital and also served on the Harvard Surgical Service. He then began a residency in orthopaedic surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD. This experience was interrupted when Dr. Southwick joined the Navy to serve his country during the Korean War. He was assigned to both the hospital ship Repose and Bethesda Naval Hospital. His experience in the Navy cemented Dr. Southwick's commitment to public service and helping the less fortunate. Over the course of his career, he made repeated trips abroad to provide health care to people in underserved locations.

Dr. Southwick returned to Johns Hopkins after leaving the Navy and completed his residency in 1955. He worked as an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins before he was appointed as the first full-time chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale in 1958. It is from this position that Dr. Southwick made a truly indelible mark.

Known as an innovative and creative surgeon, Dr. Southwick made tremendous contributions to the practice of medicine. In particular, he received recognition for his surgical management of slipped femoral capital epiphysis and approaches to the cervical spine. His name can be found in the index of most modern day surgery textbooks. However, what he probably will be remembered for most is his leadership of Yale's orthopaedic surgery residency program.

Over his tenure, nearly 100 residents completed orthopaedic surgery training at Yale. The program created by Dr. Southwick became a model for the rest of the Nation. Specifically, Dr. Southwick ensured that his program welcomed students from all backgrounds. For example, he accepted the first African American surgical resident, Dr. Augustus White, who went on to serve as the first African American department chief at Harvard's teaching hospitals. Dr. Southwick also recruited the first female African American orthopaedic surgery resident, Dr. Claudia Thomas, in 1975.

The American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons recognized Dr. Southwick's commitment to diversity by awarding him AAOS's first Diversity Award in 2003. Dr. Terry Light, a former orthopaedic resident at Yale and president of the Academic Orthopaedic Society, described Dr. Southwick in this way, ``Dr. Southwick never saw himself as a champion of civil rights nor as one who was trying to do good. He simply and honestly did what he felt was fair.'' Dr. Southwick simply noted, ``I didn't take the approach that I was going to recruit a diverse group, rather I looked to gather an interesting, qualified group that would work well together. What I found was a highly capable group of people with diverse backgrounds.''

Dr. Southwick remained as chief of orthopaedic surgery at Yale from 1958 until 1979. He left the faculty in 1993 and was appointed professor emeritus. Retirement allowed Dr. Southwick to concentrate on another passion of his life, sculpting. Some may see medicine and sculpture as unrelated endeavors, but Dr. Southwick understands that they have much in common. His thorough understanding of human anatomy allowed Dr. Southwick to create numerous works of art, many of which can be found on Yale's campus.

Dr. Southwick will be celebrating his 90th birthday with many of the surgeons whom he has trained. I could not let this event pass without recognizing his many accomplishments and impact on my own life. Over the years I have been lucky to call Dr. Southwick my mentor, colleague and friend. I know the entire Senate joins with me in commending Dr. Southwick on his remarkable career and wishing him a very happy birthday.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, for the past several weeks I have come to the floor to talk about the fiscal cliff and the threat it poses to our economy and to our Nation. As the deadline nears, the fiscal cliff has caused a lot of concern and a lot of uncertainty around the country. It appears that too many people in Washington are not serious about real solutions to get us back on solid economic ground. The White House and Democrats in the Senate are still not focused on spending cuts. They continue ignoring the real drivers of Washington's debt.

We know what they are. They are out-of-control entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Until we find a way to save and strengthen these programs, no amount of tax revenue will be able to match the increases in entitlement spending. According to the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, the problem is actually getting worse.

In its monthly budget review for December, the Congressional Budget Office said the budget deficit for just the first 2 months of this fiscal year was already $292 billion. When we take a look at that and compare this pace, we will record our fifth straight year of a trillion-dollar deficit.

In just October and November alone, which are the first 2 months of this fiscal year, we are already $300 billion in the red. Total outlays for those 2 months were $638 billion. That is an increase of almost 4 percent over the same period 1 year ago. This increase in spending is much faster than the growth we are seeing in our economy. Defense spending is actually down about 2 percent from the first 2 months of last year. That may be the lone bright spot in the CBO's number. The problem is entitlement spending is growing even faster than the rest of government.

Social Security spending is up 6.8 percent. Medicare is up 8.1 percent. Medicaid is up over 9 percent compared to last year. Those are huge increases in just 1 year and they point straight to the problem we face. Those three programs by themselves account for 43 percent of all Washington spending for the first 2 months of this fiscal year.

Some Democrats say we cannot take steps to save and to protect these important programs for future generations. They say we cannot even discuss fixing this out-of-control spending as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. That is unrealistic, and it is unsustainable. Without reform, we are facing the kinds of increases we see on this chart but getting worse next month and the month after that and then again beyond.

Without reform, it will keep getting worse until we drive our economy into the ground just trying to pay for these programs. There is a potential solution, and one potential solution or at least something that would help would be to adjust how we calculate entitlement benefits for inflation. As it stands now, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates two different versions of what is called the Consumer Price Index.

Both of these assume that a consumer buys a certain basket of goods and then they track the total cost of

that basket. A family buys a certain amount of gasoline, so much milk, so many muffins to have for breakfast and so on. The first measure is called the CPI-U, and it is what we consider the headline measure. It is what we read in the papers. It looks like what all urban consumers spend on that market basket of goods. That is why they call it the CPI- U--U is for ``urban.'' It is a number we use to index the tax brackets for inflation. That is how we decide what those brackets will be.

The second way they measure the CPI is called the CPI-W. That includes urban wage earners. The W is for ``wage earners,'' not all consumers. It also includes clerical workers and a few other professions. So it excludes anyone who is unemployed, retired, self- employed, and many other occupations. This is what the government uses for the cost-of-living adjustment to Federal benefits such as Social Security.

So we have one that they use to calculate the CPI for tax purposes and the tax brackets and the other, different, is what they use for Social Security benefits. It is very complicated. Both these systems have several problems. They both overestimate inflation. First, they assume consumers purchase the exact same basket of goods regardless of what happens to prices. So if the price of something such as muffins goes up, the CPI does not account for some consumers who will switch to toast or having something else for breakfast.

All American families understand that people change their behavior when prices change. Our understanding of inflation should take that into account. Another problem is that these versions of CPI cannot easily deal with the introduction of new products into the market. So how does something like the iPod affect consumer spending? How do we account for that, when the iPod was not in the market basket of goods before.

At what point do we start including cell phone bills or Internet access into a family's monthly expenses? It is not happening now. So we have these two different ways to measure inflation. They both have multiple flaws. As I have said, the flaws tend to overestimate the inflation people actually experience when they go to the store and they pay their bills each month.

We can see how this could be a problem over time. When the government increases what it pays based on an exaggerated inflation adjustment, the impact continues to accelerate. If we give someone an extra dollar to make up for inflation but their expenses only went up 75 cents, pretty soon all those quarters add up. It is bad fiscal policy and we actually cannot afford it anymore.

The cost-of-living adjustment should track, as closely as possible, to the actual cost of living. To address those flaws, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done is actually come up with a new and an improved measure for inflation.

It is called chained CPI, and it accounts for those changes in consumer choices and for new products and new technology.

If we use this version of CPI to adjust Federal benefits and tax brackets, CBO estimates that we would actually reduce the deficit by $200 billion over the next 10 years--over $200 billion in the next 10 years. That is the benefit of not overcompensating for inflation. The savings would be small at first, but over time they would grow, until 10 years from now we would have saved more than $200 billion. The savings get even bigger beyond the 10 years shown here in the chart, and that is because of the impact of compounding.

Now, with budget deficits of $1 trillion and more this year, last year, the year before, 5 years in a row, this one change to the inflation index--well, it won't wipe out the deficit on its own, but it is a start, and it is something we can do now that will pay big dividends down the road.

Of course, this isn't the only option. There are other ways to slow the increase in Social Security and make sure it is still around to take care of seniors in the future. We need to do something. Setting the cost-of-living adjustment using chained CPI is worth considering.

Now, even some Democrats have been open to this idea. According to Bob Woodward's book ``The Price of Politics,'' the White House was willing to look at changing the CPI as part of the so-called grand bargain last year. The Simpson-Bowles Commission included it as one of their solutions. The President himself reportedly had a version of chained CPI in his latest offer on the fiscal cliff. That is progress. It shows that some Democrats are open to serious ideas and real solutions. Because we need to do something to relieve the burden of Washington's crushing debt, this is something to consider.

More revenue is going to have to be part of the solution, and Republicans have said so. Substantial cuts in spending must be part of the answer as well. Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. That problem is centered on entitlement programs that are growing far too quickly. Switching to the chained CPI is a reasonable first step that we could take now to start to rein in Washington's out-of-control spending, allowing us to save and protect Social Security and Medicare for generations to come.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend, Senator Akaka, in sponsoring the Department of the Interior Tribal Self- Governance Act of 2012.

Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1975 to set forth a new dynamic in the Federal-tribal relationship. Since then, we have seen many benefits for Indian communities as a result of the Federal Indian policy of self- determination in general and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in particular. Indian self-determination is one of the most successful, if not the most successful, Federal Indian policies in the history of our country's relations with Indian Country.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was amended over 20 years ago to include the Self-Governance program. Self- Governance became a permanent program in the Department of the Interior in 1994, and it has been a resounding success. Now, as of 2012, hundreds of Indian tribes are participating in the Self-Governance program in one way or another.

It comes as no surprise to me, that the Indian tribes can administer these programs on behalf of their own people far better than the Federal government could ever hope to administer them.

Nevertheless, after some 18 years, the time has come for the self- governance program to be reviewed and improved. This bill is intended to provide ``key improvements to the way self-governance works in the Department of the Interior, improvements that have been studied, evaluated, discussed, and negotiated by the tribes and by the Department of the Interior.

During the course of this Congress, some issues did arise relating to the

self-governance program in Interior agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in particular the Bureau of Reclamation. Indian tribal leaders and Senate staff have worked for many months to resolve those issues, and their efforts in that regard are incorporated into this bill. I believe the bill goes a long way in dealing with those issues, and the program will be better off as a result of these efforts.

I want to thank Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and with whom I have worked this past Congress as Vice Chairman, for his leadership on this bill which I support and on advancing initiatives that will improve the lives of Indian people.