Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, yesterday, Vice President Biden and other Obama administration officials hosted presidents and leaders from colleges and universities at the White House. Officials promoted this event as an opportunity, they said, to highlight the transparency of college costs. They

said these schools were committed to providing key financial information to all of their incoming students starting next year.

Well, once again, transparency took a back seat to politics. In fact, the White House failed--failed--to level with college students about important financial information, including how the President's health care law is going to make it harder for many students in terms of their ability to get health insurance through their universities.

Earlier this week, the real story came out, and I will tell you it is discouraging. I continue to come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law because I think the health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--it is terrible for our taxpayers. I do not think I realized at the time I started doing these second opinions that it was going to be terrible for students going to college.

Take a look at these unintended consequences that have come out of this health care law. But I will tell you, on Monday, national news reports showed that the coverage requirements in the President's health care law--the mandated requirements in the health care law of a certain level of government-approved coverage--well, it is causing colleges all across the country to drop insurance coverage for their students. I would like to explain exactly how this works.

As Members of this body who voted for this on the other side of the aisle will recall, the health care law eliminates annual and lifetime benefits for insurance plans. Many colleges offer their students an opportunity for limited benefit policies to give students access to affordable health insurance coverage that actually is something that a college student might need, might benefit from, may be helped with.

These are the same benefit plans that have been popular with many unions across the country. The plans were so popular that the administration issued over 1,700 waivers which impacted over 4 million Americans. These Washington waivers ensured that people who got their insurance through certain corporations and unions would not lose the coverage they had in the lead-up to the full implementation of the health care law.

Well, over half of these waivers were granted to individuals who received their insurance through their unions so these individuals would not lose their coverage during the time when the unions were saying: This health care law is too expensive for us. We don't want to live under these mandates. We can't afford it.

Well, the colleges are finding the same situation. But unlike the unions, the colleges are not eligible to apply for these special administration waivers from the health care law. So students across the country are suffering the consequences.

This year, because of the President's health care law, these students are not going to be able to purchase or afford coverage through their schools. Schools are faced with two options: One is raise premiums dramatically, drastically, or just don't offer the health insurance programs students like, parents like, and the universities like to provide. The President of the United States and the Democrats who voted for this health care law essentially have said: Too bad.

So let's give an example from New York State. The State University of New York in Plattsburgh offered students coverage in the past for $440 per year. Next year policies will cost anywhere between $1,300 and $1,600 per student per year. That is an increase of four times, 400 percent. Why? Because the students are going to end up paying for a lot of insurance they do not need, they do not want, and they possibly cannot afford. But yet the President mandates they get this high level of insurance coverage even though it is something the people at the university think their students do not need. The universities do not have a choice. The President makes those decisions, not the president of the university but the President of the United States.

The University of Puget Sound in Washington was able to offer its students insurance last year for $165--insurance they believed was helpful to the students. Next year, to comply with the President's health care law--the mandated high levels of coverage--they estimate a policy will now cost between $1,500 and $2,000.

Since the Obama administration's mandates were so expensive, what is the University of Puget Sound going to do? Well, they announced they will not be offering any insurance coverage to any students next year-- a decision made by the university.

It is clear the President's health care law leaves many students with two bad choices: They can either be forced to pay vastly increased premiums or basically lose access to coverage altogether. This new development flies completely in the face of the President's promise. The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But let's specifically go to the President's exact promise:

No matter how we reform health care--

The President of the United States said--

we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will

be able to keep your doctor. Period.

He went on to say:

If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep

your health care plan. Period.

He then said:

No one will take it away. No matter what.

He said:

My view is that health care reform should be guided by a

simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works.

Here we are, over 2 years later, and we continue to witness the Obama administration breaking this very specific promise. Now we can add college students to the long list of people who found out the reality does not match President Obama's rhetoric. At a time when students across the Nation face increasing tuition costs and a bleak job market, now they have to deal with losing their health insurance.

Each day it becomes more obvious that the Obama economy, which includes the President's health care law, has made life worse for millions of Americans. It cannot continue. If the Supreme Court does not completely repeal this health care law, Congress needs to do it. Republicans are committed to repealing this law and replacing it with step-by-step reforms. We will continue to help Americans of all ages work to get the care they want from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Sara Aviel to be the Alternate Executive Director to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Had the Senate conducted a recorded vote, I would have voted against Ms. Aviel's nomination.

In 2011, the World Bank released a new 10-year energy sector lending strategy which includes a proposal to limit lending for new coal generation projects. I strongly disagree with the World Bank blocking any access to coal-powered energy. Their strategy will drive up energy prices around the world, and will make affordable and reliable energy for poor countries difficult to secure.

The World Bank should be focused on poverty reduction and economic growth. Using advanced technologies, coal provides a clean, low cost and reliable energy source which is critical to countries looking for assistance in poverty alleviation and economic development. I believe representatives of the United States at the World Bank should support low cost and dependable energy sources as a means to help countries spur economic growth.

Sara Aviel supports the World Bank providing financing for coal power generation but only to the poorest countries when no other options are available. She reiterated this point when I asked her whether she would support the World Bank's financing of a new coal-fired power plant project in Kosovo. She stated:

There are a number of compelling reasons in favor of this

project. First, Kosovo, one of the poorest countries in

Europe, is greatly in need of reliable base load power and

there appears to be no other viable alternatives.

Since the majority of lending by the World Bank is for middle-income countries, and not to the poorest of countries, the World Bank strategy supported by Sara Aviel will place significant limits, if not eliminate, lending for coal power generation. I believe she will use the World Bank 10-year energy strategy as a means to restrict World Bank lending for coal power generation projects, even when the proposal represents the most cost effective alternative. Requiring borrowers to accept higher cost projects when affordable and reliable alternatives are readily available is no way to operate a bank, especially when the bank is being funded with taxpayer dollars.

The World Bank has also started a shift from providing financing to help the poorest of countries with economic growth and reducing poverty, to a focus in other areas with a strong emphasis on lending to middle-income countries. Middle-income countries that receive the vast majority of World Bank financing include nations such as China and Brazil.

While Sara Aviel agrees that middle-income countries are able to borrow on international capital markets at commercial rates, she believes the World Bank should continue its lending to these countries. I disagree with her support of this policy.

The World Bank should be aggressively working towards the graduation of middle-income countries from borrowers to donors. The resources of the World Bank should be directed at helping the poorest of countries eradicate poverty and implement successful economic development projects. Their primary focus should be on assisting countries that cannot access international capital markets at commercial rates, not financing middle-income

countries that can tap other financing resources.

The World Bank is at a critical juncture. The Bank needs to pursue serious reforms, especially in the areas of corruption and transparency. It must not be used to push social agendas and political priorities to the detriment of poor nations, or to use donor funds in a manner that is not cost-effective. The United States representative must be a strong advocate for reform and accountability. I do not believe that Sara Aviel is the person to get that job done.

It is for these reasons that I oppose the nomination of Sara Aviel.

Madam President, I would like to follow up on the wonderful comments made by the minority leader. Specifically, I want to talk about the health care law and the ways that taxpayer dollars are now being wasted and spent in what appears to be a propaganda campaign by this administration to promote a health care law the American people--at least the majority of them when asked about it--

think should be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and so many Americans want to see repealed and replaced.

Over 2 years ago, President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress--in this very body and across the Hall--jammed a health care law through Congress that was drafted completely behind closed doors. We all recall Nancy Pelosi famously saying at the time: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

I have come to the floor week after week after that with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law to make sure the American people know what is in it. Week after week there have been more things found out about the health care law that has made it even more unpopular today than it was at the time it was passed and signed into law by President Obama.

Americans knew what they wanted. They did want health care reform. They wanted to be able to get the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford. Yet when I go to townhall meetings and meetings in other communities across my home State of Wyoming and ask the question: Do you think under the President's health care law you will be paying more or less for your health care, the hands go up that they are going to be paying more. Then I ask them: Do you think the quality and availability of your care is going to go down under the health care law? Again, the hands go up.

That is not what Americans want, not to pay more and get less. Yet that is what the American people are receiving under this health care law. So I will continue to deliver this second opinion on the Senate floor so we can continue to talk about what is going to be the impact on Americans' lives as a result of the health care law.

Now, for over 2 years, the news about the law has not been good for those who support it, and the country has had opposition to the law continue to increase. Today 56 percent of Americans oppose the President's health care law.

One may ask: Why is that? Well, there are a number of reasons. One is the health care law is adding to the national debt. We heard the Republican leader talk about the incredible national debt the American people are facing. The health care law has increased premiums that people have to pay for their own insurance directly as a result of the health care law being passed. The President promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But actually the health care law has made it harder for workers to keep their employer-sponsored health care coverage.

People want to have choices. They want to have patient-centered care. Yet this health care law established an unprecedented board with unelected bureaucrats who will, by their decisions, have a direct impact on whether patients can get to see a doctor or whether they can receive care.

When I look at the incentives that are part of this health care law, to me, the incentives actually appear to encourage employers to either fire workers or stop providing health care coverage. To me, this health care law is discouraging to students who otherwise might pursue a career in the medical field and potentially provide care for Americans.

In my opinion, this is a law that has actually weakened, not strengthened, Medicare. It has done that by taking $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare, not to help strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else.

The Medicare Actuary came out with a report last Friday to say that when we actually get into a realistic assessment of the impact of this health care law on Medicare, it weakens it. It shows Medicare going broke sooner than initially thought. This report has a realistic look at the impact of the health care law on Medicare and shows that it will make it that much harder for our seniors on Medicare to get the treatment they need and to actually get to see a doctor to find someone to care for them. The implementation of this law, which takes $500 billion away from Medicare, is not to strengthen or save Medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else.

So I could go on and on with legitimate complaints about the law. We made it clear for over 2 years that the law is bad for patients, bad for providers, nurses, and the doctors who take care of those patients, and it is terrible for taxpayers.

This week we got a response to our long list of serious issues, responses from the administration and members of the administration. What they are doing is essentially doubling down on the President's failed law. Instead of addressing the serious concerns the American people have about the law and about their own health care, the White House has come to the conclusion they have actually done a bad job of educating the American people about the law. So now, just months before the Presidential election, the 2012 election, the administration has just signed a $20 million contract for a private PR firm to educate the American people about the law.

Of course, this is taxpayer funded. So let me repeat: The Obama administration is not even going to acknowledge any of the real problems with the law. Instead it is going to spend 20 million taxpayer dollars on press releases and more government propaganda.

It is important to remember this isn't the first time the White House has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to spin this law. They realize it is unpopular, but are they addressing the fundamental flaws? No, they want to do more public relations.

In fact, this administration spent $700,000 on an advertisement starring Andy Griffith, the television star, about how the law will impact Medicare. The Internal Revenue Service spent nearly $1 million in taxpayer funds to pay for 4 million postcards to promote tax credits in the law for small businesses. Of course, what we have seen, and what the President would say, and I would say, is fewer and fewer small businesses than anticipated found they were not able to qualify for the so-called benefits of the health care law.

So what we have seen is the President's law continues to be unpopular, and now the administration chooses to spend taxpayer dollars to try a public relations campaign to make it more popular instead of dealing with the fundamental problems.

So here we are millions of dollars later, and it is clear that the White House still has not learned what most Americans understand--good policy is good communication. When a law is good, it sells itself and Americans immediately reap the rewards and appreciate what has been done. But when a law such as this health care law is a bad one, there is no way another slick PR campaign, paid for with taxpayer dollars, can make it look any better.

The American people deserve real solutions to their health care problems, not more Washington spin. Yesterday I called on the President to cancel this program immediately, to retain the taxpayer dollars and use it to pay off the debt, use it as part of lowering the deficit. Don't send it to a PR firm to try to spin this law.

We need to repeal this law. We need to repeal this health care law and replace it with a better plan. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on this PR campaign, we need to go back to the drawing board. Americans deserve to be able to get the care they need from the doctor they want and at a price they can afford. That is what I will continue to talk about on the Senate floor as I offer a doctor's second opinion about the significant failure of the law that passed the Senate, was crammed through the House, and was signed by President Obama 2 years ago.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have week after week since the President's health care law was signed, to talk as a doctor, someone who has taken care of patients all around Wyoming, someone who has run the Wyoming health fairs, giving low-cost medical screenings to thousands of citizens around our State, and someone who knows we need health care reform in a way that gives patients the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. There were so many promises made with this health care law that I come week after week because there are so many broken promises.

Today I want to remind the body that the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, once predicted that the health care reform ``will create 4 million jobs; 400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' It is now 2 years later, and we know that actually the exact opposite is happening. We continue with high unemployment. We continue with people out of work, unemployed, underemployed, and the promise both from the President of new jobs and of Nancy Pelosi of 4 million jobs is another broken promise. Instead of creating jobs, this new law is destroying jobs all across the country. You say, how is it they can actually be destroying jobs? That is exactly what we are seeing as a result of the health care law.

Recently, columnist George Will wrote about how the President's law will impact Cook Medical. It is the world's largest family-owned medical devices company. He explained in his column that the Democratic Congress ``included in the legislation''--and all the people on that side of the aisle voted for this--``included in the legislation a 2.3 percent tax on gross revenue''--that is not profits, that is gross revenue--``which generally amounts to about a 15 percent tax on most manufacturing profits--from U.S. sales in medical devices beginning in 2013.'' So it is something that is happening very soon. ``This will be piled,'' as he said, ``on top of the 35 percent federal corporate tax, and state and local taxes.''

Mr. Will went on to say that this 2.3 percent tax will be a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs more than 40,000 people, and $20 billion is almost double the industry's annual investment in research and development.

We want them to do research. We want development. We want new and innovative treatments that will actually help people. Instead, this administration--the Democrats in Congress in the House and the Senate and the President of the United States--put on a 2.3-percent tax, a $20 billion blow to those who do the research and the development. This tax is going to lead to ``fewer jobs but also fewer pain-reducing and life- extending inventions--stents, implantable defibrillators--which all have reduced health care costs.''

That is a quote from the article.

Cook Medical is not the only medical device company that is bracing for the President's new penalty on jobs and innovation. In fact, let's take a look at some of those.

Boston Scientific is planning for more than a $100 million charge against earnings in 2013. They recently built a $35 million research and development facility. This is called Boston Scientific--Boston. Where did they build their research center? Ireland. And they are building a $150 million factory called Boston Scientific in China. That is as a result of what we see with this health care law and the impact of what this administration is doing to jobs in America.

Stryker Corporation, based in Michigan, blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs.

Zimmer, based in Indiana, is laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings related to this tax.

These are companies that, as an orthopedic surgeon, I say have made new advances in technologies, in artificial joints over the years I have practiced in Wyoming. These are companies that have longstanding reputations. Yet they are laying off people because of the new Medicare law--American workers.

Medtronic expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million.

Other companies--Covidien, now based in Ireland, has cited the tax in explanation of 200 layoffs and a decision to move production to Costa Rica and to Mexico.

Once again, the column by Mr. Will makes it clear that the President's health care law is destroying jobs and is having a devastating impact on our economy.

In March, Senator Coburn and I released our third health care law oversight report. We entitled the report ``Warning: Side Effects, A Check-Up on the Federal Health Law.'' One chapter in our report is dedicated to the health care law's job-killing Medicare device tax. It is a tax the analyses predict will negatively impact job creation and also--incredibly important for people around this country--will stifle medical innovation.

As an orthopedic surgeon, I can tell you that I have seen firsthand how cutting-edge technology saves lives and also supports jobs across the country. Scientists have invented medical devices, such as pacemakers, defibrillators, and artificial joints, that have improved the quality of life for so many Americans. But now, today, because of this health care law, the future of the medical device industry in America is under attack. In September of 2011, the Manhattan Institute issued a report showing the devastating impact the President's device tax will have on industry. The Manhattan Institute's report shows the medical device tax will eliminate at least 43,000 American jobs. This number represents more than 1 out of every 10 jobs in the device manufacturing sector. It is not a record the Democrats should be proud of, but it is clearly a record caused by the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, and specifically the President who signed this bill into law.

Not only will this tax kill 43,000 jobs, workers are going to lose about $3.5 billion in wages. This is money these workers could have spent in their local communities to help the economy of those communities and, therefore, the Nation's economy.

So what does all this mean to U.S. device manufacturers? Well, these companies are more likely to close their plants in the United States. They will close the plants here and do what others have done: replace them with plants overseas. Foreign manufacturers will improve their competitiveness compared to American firms. This will severely threaten U.S. leadership in the device industry and in the world. Do we want to see plants closing at high-tech medical device research facilities in States such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin?

Finally, the President's medical device tax is going to increase costs to American consumers. These are the American consumers who said what they wanted with the health care law is care they need, the doctor they want, at a price they can afford. Yet this health care law is going to increase costs to American consumers. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the health care law's tax imposed on medical device manufacturers and drug manufacturers and health insurance providers would be passed through to the consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. Wasn't it the President who promised that under his health care law insurance premiums would lower by $2,500 a year? Is that a promise the President and Democrats in Congress have forgotten? The American people have not forgotten, which is why the health care law is even more unpopular today than the day it was signed into law.

The administration's own Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, came to the same conclusion. He estimated these taxes could be passed through to health care consumers in the form of higher drug prices, higher device prices, and higher insurance premiums.

If the administration wants to get serious--and I wonder if this administration wants to get serious--about reducing regulatory burdens and creating good jobs, then the President should start today by repealing his onerous medical device tax. Not only will this device tax suppress job creation and limit economic growth, it will also slow, and perhaps even stop, research and development into new lifesaving medical devices.

We must take action to repeal this anticompetitive, job-destroying device tax before it begins to take effect in 2013. If the White House wants to work with Republicans on progrowth policies, policies that support innovation, policies that get the Nation's economy moving again, then President Obama would support repealing this device tax.

Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced legislation, S. 17, that would do just that. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill, and I believe the Senate should take up the Hatch bill and pass it.

As we are now 2 years after the passing and signing into law of the President's health care law, I will continue to come to the Senate floor because this is a health care law that is bad for patients, it is bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and it is terrible for the American taxpayers. We need to repeal and replace this broken health care law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Well, I would tell my colleague from Texas, who has been a leader in this fight asking for a budget, demanding a budget, as of today it has been 1,111 days since the Senate passed a budget, in spite of the law that says they must do so by April 15 of each year. So April 15 came and went this year, as it did last year and the year before, and yet there is no budget.

So I look to the leadership of the Senator from Texas, who knows how the hard-working families in her State and the hard-working families of my State resent the fact that Washington refuses to be accountable. The Democrats in this body refuse to be accountable to the American people.

All the American people are asking for, in my view, is value for their money. They want to make sure the money they send to Washington is being spent effectively and efficiently, and they are actually getting value for their money.

I assume that is what my colleague is hearing from Texas as well.

I would tell my colleague and friend from Texas, who is a wonderful student of this as well, this health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the doctors and nurses who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for taxpayers, who are going do get stuck footing the bill. So it is not a surprise this administration doesn't want to come to the Senate, is embarrassed to come to the Senate with a budget, because they know the American people would be so offended by the irresponsibility and the nature of such a budget.

That is the situation we find ourselves in now. As both my colleagues have said, they took $500 billion from Medicare--and not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare--to start a whole new government program for someone else. That is why when I travel the State of Wyoming and I talk to seniors, they say they don't like this health care law. It is why the health care law is even more unpopular today than it was the day it was passed.

But I do notice our colleague from Wisconsin has a new chart I am trying to read from here, and so I will ask if he could share with us what is on that chart so that everyone gets a chance to see it and hear the explanation.

I just want to thank my colleagues who are here today sharing their time and their insight. They have a lot of insight because they have run businesses, they have worked to actually meet a budget and live within a budget, have dealt with government regulations. And the Senator from Texas was talking about these regulations. They are burdensome, they are expensive, and they are time-consuming. It is hard to budget when you don't know what to expect. That is what the American people who create jobs and who work jobs need--some predictability and some certainty so they can make wise decisions. And when you have a Congress led by the Democrats in the Senate who do not pass a budget, the predictability isn't there, the certainty isn't there. There is so much confusion and uncertainty that people have a hard time making the longer term decisions.

To my colleague from Wisconsin, I know that is what I saw in my medical office, and as I talk to my colleague, I know they have the same situation in Wisconsin.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin as well as my colleagues from Texas and Tennessee for their leadership and their continued efforts to try to get the Democrats in this body and this administration to pass a budget, which by law they are mandated to do. Yet, even today, now we are at 1,111 days without a budget. To me, that is inexcusable.

Mr. President, today I rise to echo the comments made by my colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Throughout Senator Hatch's distinguished career, he has served this Senate and this Nation in a number of major leadership capacities. I am most grateful for his ongoing leadership and the position he has taken in the Senate Western Caucus--that of being chairman of the caucus's Subcommittee on Public Lands.

Senator Hatch, along with Senator Moran and I, has laid out a clear path to energy security and job creation. The bill is called the Western Economic Security Today Act, or the WEST Act.

President Obama told Congress he would ``keep trying every new idea that works.'' He went on to say he would ``listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it.''

Well, last year Western Republicans laid out a clear path to energy security and job creation for the Western United States and for the country. The report is entitled ``Jobs Frontier, Breaking Down Washington's Barriers to America's Red, White and Blue Jobs.''

President Obama should listen to and embrace the findings in this report. The House of Representatives has passed key pieces of legislation over the past year from this Jobs Frontier Report. These are pieces of legislation that will begin to generate quality jobs and increase U.S. energy production.

These bills tackle key critical issues, such as encouraging energy exploration and production and removing unnecessary EPA regulations. This legislation would create thousands--thousands--of jobs for Americans.

The WEST Act contains language from eight of these bills already passed by the House that were part of the Jobs Frontier original report. This legislation accomplishes many of the goals of the Jobs Frontier Report. It does it by increasing affordable American energy. It does it by promoting agriculture and ranching. And it does it by overturning Washington's regulatory overreach.

The bottom line is this act is ready to create jobs now, today, and to set the Nation on the path to becoming more energy secure.

So I am here to congratulate Senator Hatch for bringing this important bill forward.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have week after week since the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the law that I have great concerns with. I do that as a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years, took care of families in Wyoming, was involved with programs aimed at prevention of disease, early detention of disease, and early treatment of disease. I come to the floor to talk specifically about a portion of the health care law that has been discussed quite a bit in the last week or two on the Senate floor.

Congress has talked a lot about the so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund included in the President's health care law. When I looked at this health care law initially--and I continue to do so--I asked the question, is this health care law the best way to give patients the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a cost they can afford? I believe it has failed in so many ways to do that, which is why I continue to work to try to repeal and replace this health care law.

When we get to the specifics of this Prevention and Public Health Fund, the President and Democrats have claimed that the purpose of the fund was to promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect against public health emergencies. All of us want to promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect against public health emergencies. I know how important those things are as a doctor. I know how important it is to the point that for over two decades in Wyoming, I was medical director of a program called Wyoming Health Fairs, where we provided low-cost health care screenings to people all across the Cowboy State. It is a very important program. People have continued to write letters to me over the decades about the fact that going to a health fair and learning about how to prevent diseases, about early detection of problems, and how they feel either they or members of their families have had their lives saved as a result of the services provided all throughout those communities aimed at prevention and early detention of problems--tests such as blood pressure, PSA tests, people learning about how to examine themselves, how to get a mammogram--a lost-cost or free mammogram--all of these things that are aimed at prevention. These gave people the tools they needed to make decisions about their health and their health care--not just for the patient but also to help their medical providers.

Instead of helping Americans prevent health problems, the President's new law actually uses this so-called prevention fund as a Washington slush fund. In fact, the new health law provided about $15 billion for this fund from 2010 to 2019, and then beyond that about $2 billion every year in annual appropriation of funds to go toward this same slush fund--$2 billion a year forever.

Who will control the fund? The Secretary of Health and Human Services. Even though this law has only been in place for 2 years, we have already witnessed how the Obama administration officials have allowed this money to be wasted. Among other things, we hear of a health clinic using the funding to spay and neuter pets. That is right, to spay and neuter pets.

The Minnesota Department of Health used $3.6 million to create at least four regional food policy councils. And taxpayers will be happy to learn--or will not be so happy to learn, of course--that their hard- earned money helped a county in California secure a ban on new fast food restaurants.

I have nothing against food policy councils or spaying and neutering pets, but when the U.S. Government is borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, and when we have a national debt in the area of $15 trillion, Washington should not waste Americans' hard- earned taxpayer dollars. But we continue to do it, and this fund is a key example.

According to the nonpartisan CBO, eliminating the prevention fund would save about $13.6 billion over the next 10 years. The fact is Congress already funds many prevention programs--prevention programs with a proven track record of success. Examples include cancer prevention, tobacco prevention, and a host of other programs.

Republicans have supported, and will continue to support, these critical prevention programs--cancer prevention, tobacco prevention, and working on heart disease. However, the record is clear that the so- called prevention fund in the health care law is wasteful and duplicative. It doesn't help people stay well or become well.

Senator Alexander from Tennessee introduced legislation that would eliminate this slush fund and use the savings to maintain student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent.

Under current law, students who receive subsidized Stafford student loans will see rates increase shortly to 6.8 percent, unless, of course, Congress acts. I am ready to act. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, people generally agree that preventing this rate increase is an important priority. The difference is how do we pay for it.

The majority leader wants to raise taxes on small business owners. He says that is the better way forward. But there is a better way forward than raising taxes on the people who create jobs, at a time when we have over 8-percent unemployment and last month's job numbers are abysmal. Only 125,000 new jobs were created, but 3 times that amount of people quit looking for jobs completely. For every one new job, three people quit looking for jobs at all. To raise taxes on the people who are creating jobs in this country is the wrong way to go.

Senator Alexander's proposal stops the rate increase by eliminating this prevention slush fund. His bill uses the rest of the funding for deficit reduction. I have cosponsored that legislation.

I think it is also important to know that the President has already agreed

to use his slush fund to offset other spending. In September of 2011, the President proposed reducing the slush fund by $3.5 billion. In February, part of the payroll tax cut signed by the President contained a $4.5 billion cut from his slush fund. Finally, in March, the President's 2013 budget proposed cutting the fund by another $5 billion.

It is ironic that the President of the United States and Washington Democrats now oppose using money from their so-called prevention slush fund. If the White House and Democrats in Congress want to ensure that student loan rates stay low, they will cut this wasteful program and use the money to help the next generation of Americans.

We do know that young people coming out of college today are, on average, having a debt of about $25,000; and whether the interest rate is zero or 3.4 percent or 6.8 percent, they are still coming out with a huge debt, at a time when we know 53 percent of the people coming out of school can't find a job or cannot find a job consistent with their level of education. We also read that 40 percent are going back home to live; some are returning home instead of going out into the workplace.

It is time to focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, and it is time to agree that we need to keep the interest rates low; that we ought to pay for it with money that is there, which can easily be used. We should not raise taxes on job creators at a time when the country is in this sort of economic condition.

I continue to come to the floor week after week to talk about findings in the health care law. Some things are unintended consequences, and some things are money tucked away for other purposes. It is hard for Americans to ever forget Nancy Pelosi saying that first you have to pass the health care law before you get to find out what is in it. The more the American people find out what is in it, the less they like it--to the point that 67 percent of Americans feel that the health care law should be totally or at least partially found unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court looks to make their ruling in the next months ahead.

This is a health care law that, in my opinion, is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients--and it is terrible for the American taxpayers. This is a time when we need to repeal and replace this health care law. Now there is a way to use one of the provisions within it to fund and make sure that we do not raise interest rates for the students in this country, so they can get the education they need and, hopefully, find a job and not punish those who have tried to provide jobs to these graduates.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to spend a little time today talking about what has become known across the country as the Obama economy. This administration, after nearly 4 years, has failed to get this country and to get our economy moving again. Even worse, as I look at it, this administration seems to be taking steps that appear to be methodically and deliberately sabotaging certain parts of our Nation's economy. They are doing this in sectors of the economy that, apparently, to me, they just don't like. And they are doing it by issuing thousands and thousands of pages of redtape on the very people in this country who have successfully created jobs for Americans in the past.

This administration has finalized 1,330 rules that have been deemed economically significant. They have proposed over 1,300 additional economically significant rules. So what does this mean, the words ``economically significant''? Well, those are rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more.

Fifty-seven coal-fired powerplants have already announced their closure because of the cumulative effect of these rules on just this one industry. The EPA is proposing regulations on whole sectors of the economy, whether it is issuing new storm water regulations for existing buildings to requiring costly Clean Water Act permits. They are doing this for ditches on family farms.

Thousands of American jobs have already been lost, and others are on the chopping block due to these rules. These are not new laws that have been passed but are rules coming from this administration. Each time the EPA claims the benefits of the rules vastly outweigh the costs. The costs are real in terms of real dollars to the economy, but the benefits are unknown. The administration claims the benefits are in so- called ``saved future health care costs.'' That is how they define it, ``saved future health care costs.''

The EPA and this administration have a history of understating the costs and of overstating, in my opinion, the benefits. The EPA's math on the benefits and the costs of their rules is not even close to being accurate. This has been verified in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve as a member.

The EPA rules that set new burdensome limits on emission of pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, mercury, and sulfur dioxide, can have serious costs to plants and factories that then have to update their facilities with costly equipment or simply close to be under the new standard, and these are new standards--not the old standards but new standards.

Those reductions yield few quantifiable benefits to the economy. That is not me saying that, it is the EPA's own models. They admit the reductions yield very few quantifiable benefits to the economy. The costs are usually significant to the businesses in terms of actual expenses, as well as to the public in terms of people looking for jobs and in terms of jobs that are lost.

The EPA knows no one would buy into their rules with such high pricetags. So in order to inflate the so-called ``benefits'' of their rules, the EPA says: As a result of having less emissions from plants and factories, there must also be reductions in particulate matter, or dust, at the same time. They then make the inaccurate conclusion that reductions in dust will somehow yield billions of dollars in health benefits because folks will have healthier lungs and visit the doctor fewer times.

These reductions in dust are often in areas where the dust level today is already well within public health safety standards that are set by the EPA. So the folks aren't actually getting sick in those areas anyway. So if people aren't already getting sick in the areas where the EPA is trying to regulate the air, then how is it they can claim they are going to save billions of dollars in fewer visits to the hospital by reducing dust levels even further than today's safe levels?

What we know now is the EPA is cooking the books. At the same time, they are missing the real public health threat they, themselves, the EPA, is making worse; that is, the public health threat from high unemployment. I recently released a report entitled ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of High Unemployment.'' Let me repeat that: ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of High Unemployment. Studies Show EPA Rules Cost Americans Their Jobs and Their Health.''

This is a report submitted by the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety by the minority subcommittee staff.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Key Findings and Recommendations and the Executive Summary of this report.

Mr. President, this is a comprehensive report, and it contains expert testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from the best scientific medical research, from institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Yale University, and others. This key medical research and testimony on the impact of unemployment on public health is irrefutable.

The report concludes that high unemployment increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses, and of premature death in communities. That is high unemployment; high unemployment raises health care costs, raising further questions about the claimed health savings of the EPA's regulations. High unemployment also hurts children's health and family well-being.

On June 15, 2011, Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here is what he said:

The unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor

for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological

studies performed since the early 1980s.

So this has been a well-known fact now for over 30 years. Continuing the quote:

In addition to influences on mental disorder, suicide and

alcohol abuse and alcoholism, unemployment is also an

important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and overall

decreases in life expectancy.

I speak as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming, taking care of Wyoming families for a quarter of a century, and I can assure you this is perfectly in keeping with my experience in my years of practicing medicine.

Yale researcher Dr. William T. Gallo's paper on the impact of late- career job loss reports:

Results suggest that the true costs of late career

unemployment exceed financial deprivation, and include

substantial health consequences.

``Substantial health consequences.'' He goes on to say:

Physicians who treat individuals who lose jobs as they near

retirement should consider the loss of employment a potential

risk factor for adverse vascular health changes.

What does that mean? Well, it means a stroke, high blood pressure, or heart disease. These are all major killers, major things that result in disability and long-term health problems, increasing the cost of care.

Let's look now at the impact of joblessness on children. The National Center for Health Statistics concluded:

Children in poor families were four times as likely to be

in fair or poor health as children in families that were not

poor.

I have seen firsthand how economic challenges affect Americans' health and their quality of life. In my medical opinion, this country faces a worsening health threat from unemployment, with well over 30 months of unemployment rates over 8 percent.

I have urged the EPA to seriously consider the impacts of these rules and the new rules they continue to come out with and how they have a bad impact on families--on pregnant women, on children, on the elderly. The EPA has not looked at the serious health impacts their rules result in. The EPA continues to hide behind computer models--not real people-- that churn out inflated, fictitious so-called ``benefits of health.''

The time to get serious about public health is now. In fact, there was a USA Today article published Monday of last week, and I brought a copy along because it was very disturbing. On the front page of USA Today, Monday, April 30, 2012, the police are tying domestic violence to the economy. The headline reads: ``Domestic violence rises in sluggish economy, police report.'' The article states:

Police are encountering more domestic violence related to

the sluggish economy, a national survey of law enforcement

agencies finds.

These are law enforcement agencies across the country, their national survey. The article quotes Camden, NJ, police chief Scott Thompson, who stated it is ``impossible'' to separate the economy from the domestic turmoil in the city where unemployment is 19 percent. Camden police chief Scott Thompson went on to say:

When stresses in the home increase because of unemployment

and other hardships, domestic violence increases. We see it

on the street.

So these types of reports of increased domestic violence due to unemployment are not just being reported in Camden, NJ.

The article cites Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Washington- based law enforcement think tank, who expressed serious concerns with the rising violence. He said:

You are dealing with households in which people have lost

jobs or are in fear of losing their jobs. This is an added

stress that can push people to the breaking point.

I agree. It is certainly what I saw as well in my days of medical training and medical practice.

The health crisis from unemployment under this administration is getting worse.

On May 4, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor, in their article on the unemployment rate, said:

While the economy added 115,000 net jobs in April, some

350,000 Americans gave up looking for work.

So for every one new job that was added, three people gave up looking for work. That has the effect of reducing the unemployment rate because, by the Federal Government's way of calculating it, those people no longer count as part of the labor force. As a result, the share of Americans who are part of the labor force--either working or actively looking for work--has reached a 30-year low. You can add those numbers and look at those and say ``350,000 people'' and put that to the list of folks who are now at risk for serious health impacts due to the Obama economy.

If we want to make Americans healthy, we need to get Americans back to work. We need to get the EPA out of the business of making folks unemployed across this country. Each new job is a job that will put food on the table for struggling families and help keep medical costs under control. New jobs will keep thousands of Americans out of the doctor's office and on the playground. Creating jobs will keep those nearing retirement from paying for more prescription drugs so they can spend more time and money on their grandchildren. Creating jobs will ensure that the next generation will be healthier than the last.

Let's work together to improve public health by reducing this administration's redtape that is putting so many Americans out of work. The health and happiness of the American people depends upon it.

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

Madam President, week after week, I have come to the floor to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I tell my colleague from Tennessee that I should have him join me on a weekly basis in these second opinions, because he has clearly stated a number of things in this health care law that are hurting people. He talked about his experience as a Governor and the impact of Medicaid mandates and how that impacted his ability to provide for education within a State.

Just now, with the bill he will introduce, I associate myself with his remarks, because he showed that one of the tricks that was used in passing the health care law is overcharging. This is the Obama health care law overcharging young people on student loans. The Democrats all voted for it and the Republicans all voted against it. It is overcharging students for student loans to pay for the President's health care law.

Again, I appreciate the comments by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, and his incredible leadership on this, which he continues to provide every day in the Senate.

I come to the floor today to again give a second opinion about another component of the health care law and one of the tricks that the administration has tried to use in terms of making the health care law, in their opinion, more appealing, which essentially the Government Accountability Office this week called foul.

The President was caught and called out by the GAO, when they uncovered another gimmick in the President's health care law. It is a gimmick that tries to cover up how the President's law devastates seniors' ability to get the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford.

The Obama administration's latest trick targets seniors on a program called Medicare Advantage. It is a program that one out of four seniors--people on Medicare--relies on for their health care coverage. As someone who has taken care of lots of Medicare patients over the years, I can tell you that one in four--about 12 million seniors--is on this Medicare Advantage Program. The reason it is an advantage for them is that it helps with preventive medicine, with coordinating their care. They like it because of eyeglasses and eye care and because of hearing aids.

Each one of those 12 million seniors knows they are on Medicare Advantage because it is a choice they make to go onto the program. Well, as people all around the country remember, the White House and Democrats, in the effort to pass the health care law, cut $500 billion from Medicare--not to strengthen Medicare or save Medicare for our seniors, no--to start a whole new government program for other people. Out of that $500 billion that the President and his administration and Democrats in Congress cut from Medicare, about $145 billion of that money came from this Medicare Advantage Program--a program people like. These cuts would have gone into place this year--actually, October of this year. That is the time of year when seniors are supposed to register for their Medicare Advantage plans for the next year. So we are talking about October of 2012, the month before the Presidential election, and cuts coming then would make those millions of American seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage very unhappy with this administration and the Democrats in Congress who shoved this down the throats of the American people.

In spite of the American people saying, no, don't pass this health care law, according to the President and the Democrats, too bad, we know what is better for you. Democrats believe that a one-size-fits-all is best, that a government-centered program is better than a patient- centered program.

The President and his folks saw this political problem developing. It is a real political problem for the President. And what did the administration do? Well, they put in place a massive $8.3 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--so-called pilot program. What that will do is temporarily reverse most of these Medicare Advantage cuts--not for too long, just to get the President and the Democrats past the election of 2012.

According to the GAO, 90 percent of the Medicare Advantage enrollees will be covered by these contracts eligible for this so-called bonus in 2012 and 2013. But this is a sham program. It is seven times larger than any similar demonstration program Medicare has ever attempted, and Medicare has been in place now for 50 years. Take a look at this. This is the largest ever--seven times larger than any demonstration program they have ever attempted. Even the GAO, which is supposed to be--and is--nonpartisan, called out the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This program wasn't actually designed to improve the Medicare Advantage Program. That is why this is a

sham. The reality is this so-called bonus program is a political stunt aimed at the 2012 Presidential election. The administration simply did not want to face America's seniors with the truth--the truth that his health care law gutted the popular Medicare Advantage Program, reducing choices and raising premiums.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reported yesterday that ``the demonstration program turns into a pumpkin in 2013.''

They go on to say:

The real game here is purely political--to give a program

that is popular with seniors a temporary reprieve past

Election Day. Then if Mr. Obama is reelected, he will go

ahead and gut Medicare Advantage.

That has been his intention all along--to gut Medicare Advantage.

Investor's Business Daily yesterday described it as ``playing politics with Medicare.'' They go on to report:

The entire project is so transparently political that the

normally reserved GAO urged the Health and Human Services

Department to cancel it altogether.

Isn't this the administration that claimed that accountability was their goal, that this was going to be the most accountable administration in history? Then why is the government's own accountability office calling the President and the Democrats on the carpet and saying: Cancel this program altogether.

An op-ed that appeared in Forbes Magazine called it the ``Obama Campaign's $8 Billion Taxpayer-Funded Medicare Slush Fund.'' The author notes:

This development opens up a new expansion of executive-

branch power: the ability to spend billions of dollars on

politically-favored constituents, without the consent of

Congress.

Madam President, we wouldn't have known about the Obama administration's $8 billion coverup if it weren't for my colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch, who insisted on the GAO investigation. I believe the American people owe a debt of thanks to Senator Hatch. Thanks to his leadership, we now know what the administration is doing to try to trick American seniors and make it harder for them to get the care they need after the Presidential election.

Once again, this administration claims to be for transparency, claims to pride itself on accountability, but is not leveling with the American people. So today I am calling on the President to direct his Secretary of Health and Human Services to cancel this waste of taxpayer dollars that are being used to cover up the damage his health care law is doing to the seniors of this country who are on Medicare Advantage. It is time they cancel the program and come clean about their plan for seniors on Medicare Advantage. This latest gimmick is just another reason we must repeal the President's health care law and replace it with patient-centered reform.

So I will continue to come to the floor every week because we can never forget Nancy Pelosi's quote that ``first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it.'' Week after week, we are finding out more things in this health care law. And now, under the direction and suspicion of Senator Hatch, we have the Government Accountability Office coming out and saying they found something new again this week--an effort by this administration to hide from the American people the real impact of the health care law and hide it before the election so the American people will not--the President hopes--go to the polls and vote the way, in my mind, they would have voted had they seen the clear reality of all of the impacts of this health care law.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague from Wyoming and the excellent work he is doing and continues to do, as well as the leadership he continues to provide for all the Senate and certainly for the people of Wyoming. He is the captain of our team. I agree with him and wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming and express my concerns about the new ambush election rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board.

The National Labor Relations Board is the Federal agency charged with conducting labor elections and investigating unfair labor practice charges. The appointed members of this board are meant to help facilitate a level playing field in the private sector workplace. Unfortunately, recent actions have demonstrated that the board is much more interested, in my opinion, in pursuing regulatory changes that favor unions. They should be focused on ensuring that workers are able to make informed decisions about their place of employment, not on showing favoritism.

Let's take a look at the ambush election rule. On December 22 of last year, the National Labor Relations Board issued a new rule. The new rule greatly shortens the time period between the filing of a petition for union representation and when that election is held. Under the current rules, most union elections take place within about 38 days. Under the new rules, the time could be cut almost in half. The ambush election rule also narrows the scope of preelection hearings while limiting the rights of a party to preelection appeals.

I believe this misguided rule undermines the basic fairness in the representation election process. It limits the amount of information received by employees regarding the impact of unionization on their workplace. The rule also significantly restricts the ability of employers to educate their employees and to share their perspective.

I believe this causes harm to workers. The decision on whether to join or form a union is a very important decision for workers. Employment decisions directly affect an individual's ability to support their family, to pay their bills, and to sustain their livelihood. Workers deserve to have all the information needed to make a well- informed decision.

In order to seriously consider their options, employees must have the opportunity to hear from both sides on the implications of unionization. The ambush election rule, in my opinion, attempts to quickly rush employees through the union election process, without giving those employees the full picture and a clear understanding of the issues.

I have great concerns about what I believe is a disregarding of employer input. The ambush election rule disregards the rights of small businesses and employers across this country. The new rule is attempting to silence employers from discussing vital information with their employees about unionization and the impact on their lives and on their jobs. Under the new rule, employers would have a very limited amount of time to share their views, to provide counterarguments, and to explain what unionization would mean in the workplace. Employers should be allowed time to fully explain the information to their employees. Ultimately, I believe the purpose of the recently released rule is to leave employers unable to effectively communicate with workers about important workplace issues. The Board is infringing upon the free speech rights of the employers.

I believe this new rule prevents employers from getting counsel. In this tough economic environment, small business owners are facing an incredible amount of pressure and responsibility. Job creators are working hard to ensure their products and services are competitive. They are working to find available markets for their goods and services. They are trying to deal with the financial health of their businesses.

Many small business owners are unaware of the complicated Federal laws they must adhere to during the union election process. Due to the variety of competing priorities and limited resources, small businesses all across this country often don't employ inhouse legal counsel or human resource professionals familiar with unionization laws. Under the new rule,

however, the time constraints will make it even more difficult for them to find appropriate counsel, to consult on the issues, and to prepare for the election process. Employers will be scrambling to find a labor attorney or a human resource professional to help explain their rights and to ensure that their actions are permissible under current law. As a result, many employers will be left at risk for unintentionally violating certain Federal labor laws or silenced.

The National Labor Relations Board should not be forcing employers to preemptively analyze Federal labor laws and figure out how best to communicate their views of unionization in case a union petition happens to pop up. Job creators should be focusing their scarce time and resources on managing and growing their businesses, on trying to put Americans back to work at a time of over 8 percent unemployment.

I view this whole new rule as unnecessary. There is no reason for the new rule. The median timeframe for union elections has been 38 days from the filing of the petition. About 91 percent of all the elections held in 2011 occurred within 56 days. These numbers indicate the petitions and elections are handled, and have been handled, in a timely manner. Furthermore, the current election procedures are not impeding the ability of unions to win the representation elections. According to the National Labor Relations Board's own statistics, unions won about 71 percent of elections held in 2011.

When I take a look at what is happening with the National Labor Relations Board, what comes to mind are the recent recess appointments made by the President. This new rule we are facing and discussing is not the first time the Obama administration has attempted to use the NLRB to pursue the union's agenda. The administration continues to take actions and push through policies that are unwise and even, in my opinion, unconstitutional, in order to do the bidding of unions.

In an action that was both unprecedented and unconstitutional, President Obama recess appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board during a pro forma session of this Senate. President Obama appointed three individuals. The nominations of two of them, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, were sent to the Senate only a few days before the pro forma session began. As a result, the Senate had no opportunity--none at all--to hold hearings or debate the nominees. President Obama completely disregarded the constitutional requirement of advice and consent for executive nominees. The appointments were a heavy-handed effort by this administration to curry favor, in my opinion, with the unions.

I come to the floor as someone who has talked at great length about the impact of regulations and how they make it harder and more expensive for our small businesses to hire people around the country. Businesses are already having trouble keeping track of all the changing rules and trying to abide by all the new requirements they face on almost a daily basis. The only certainty being offered to the job creators in the United States is that the Obama administration is going to continue to change the rules of the game on businesses to meet its own agenda. The ambush election rule is the exact type of regulatory change that makes employers nervous and reluctant to expand their businesses, to create new jobs, to hire and put people back to work. This Federal Government should be focused on giving employers stability, predictability, and opportunities for growth instead of stacking the deck, as we see it, in favor of labor unions.

I come to the floor, as I know my colleagues will as well, in a call to action to employ the Congressional Review Act. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn the ambush election rule by passing a resolution of disapproval. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 36, introduced by Senator Enzi. The resolution of disapproval rescinds the new union election rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board. Unless Congress takes action, the new rule is scheduled to take effect on April 30 of this year--just the end of this month. I call upon the Senate to pass S.J. Res. 36 and prevent this dangerous rule from silencing employers and hindering the ability of American workers to make informed decisions.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, this being tax week, people all around the country are sending in their tax returns. The deadline just passed yesterday--April 17--so people are focused a lot on what happens in Washington. They think about the IRS. They think about the money being sent and how that money is being spent. As people pay their annual tax bills, I wish to remind Americans about how the Obama administration is actually spending tax dollars on the President's unpopular health care law. That is why I come to the floor, as I have every week since the health care law passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law.

I said at the time it was passed that there would be some new revelation, some unintended consequence, something new that people would learn week after week. As someone who has practiced medicine for almost a quarter of a century taking care of families in Wyoming, I wanted to offer a doctor's second opinion, because I felt from the beginning that in spite of the many promises the President made, the bill that was actually passed and signed into law is one that is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and terrible for taxpayers.

So I come to the floor because it seems to me that instead of using much of the money to improve medical care in America, this administration is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to what--the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, The Hill newspaper reported on April 9 of this year that the Obama administration is quietly sending an additional $500 million to the IRS--the Internal Revenue Service. The headline is: ``Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law.''

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

This money is transferred outside the normal appropriations process. That is a concern. The money is transferred outside the normal appropriations process. It goes to the very tax agency that is responsible for implementing many of the key provisions of the health care law. One would think that maybe we would have doctors and nurses implementing many of the provisions of the health care law. No, we have the IRS. This includes the controversial and unprecedented mandate that all Americans must buy a government-approved product--health insurance.

We remember the Supreme Court just held hearings on this unprecedented mandate. Seventy percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional. They believe that either part or all of the health care law ought to be ruled unconstitutional. Yet the article says that the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Department has, to date, transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past 2 years and plans to send another $300 million this year. These secretive transfers hide the true cost of the health care law. They also make it difficult for Congress to perform the agency oversight that is part of our obligation.

So I look at this and I say this law is bad. It is bad, I believe, for our patients and providers and taxpayers. I look at the way it has been structured and the way this money is being transferred and I think it highlights the problems with the law. What does the IRS intend to do? They want to hire more than 300 new employees next year to implement the Tax Code changes, such as the taxes imposed on drug companies, device manufacturers, and health insurers. This bill is a laundry list of taxes and fees. The IRS also has to implement and monitor the laws of the priciest component--the exchange subsidies. For this, the IRS is asking Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering just the subsidies.

Last week Ways and Means Committee Chairman Camp sent a letter to

the IRS Commissioner asking that the Commissioner provide specific details about these reports.

Chairman Camp specifically asked the IRS Commissioner to tell the committee how many employees are being hired and which tax increases the agents will be working on. The American people deserve to know how their dollars are being spent, where these tax dollars are being used, what the IRS is doing with the money. They deserve to know because the health care law actually increases the IRS's power to insert itself into the American people's lives.

How is it the health care law increases the IRS's power to insert itself into Americans' lives? By, one, having the IRS verify that Americans have acceptable government-approved insurance; also by having the IRS penalize Americans if they do not have acceptable government- approved insurance; also by having the IRS confiscate Americans' tax refund dollars if they do not have government-approved insurance; and, finally, by having the IRS have additional power in terms of auditing our American citizens' lives.

This is all included in the health care law. This is not health care reform. The IRS should never be allowed to intrude into the private health care decisions of the American people. The American people deserve to know how this alleged $500 million transfer is being spent and how many additional IRS agents will be hired to investigate their private health care decisions.

When Americans send their hard-earned dollars to Washington, they want to make sure their money is being spent wisely. The American people want to know they are getting value for their tax dollars. They do not want their dollars to create more bureaucracy and further invade their privacy.

So I come to the floor, as I have over the last couple years since the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion. This health care law did not provide the American people with what they wanted, which was the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a price they can afford. Instead, what they are seeing is the President's promises have been broken.

The President promised if someone likes their care, they can keep it. We now know that is not going to be true for many Americans. The President promised health care costs would actually go down instead of going up and he told Congress and he told others the health care insurance costs would drop $2,500 per family. Instead, what families across the country have seen is that their health care premiums have gone up by about $2,100 a year since the health care law has gone into effect, rather than going down. So we hear the President's promises and we see the reality on the ground.

When I travel Wyoming and talk to folks and ask: How many of you believe under the health care law your own costs--your own costs--are going to go up, despite the President's promises they are going to go down, every hand goes up. When I ask the question: How many of you believe the quality of your own care--which is what people are concerned about: their own care, their own family--how many of you believe the quality of your own care will go down, again, every hand goes up. That is not what Americans want: paying more and getting less. That is why it is time to repeal and replace this terrible health care law.

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

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Lauren Barlow for her hard work as an intern for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office.

Lauren is a native of Gilbert, AZ, and a graduate from Gilbert High School. She graduated from the Brigham Young University with a degree in English. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Lauren for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Greyson Buckingham for his hard work as an intern for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize his continued efforts and contributions to my office.

Greyson is a native of Kelly, WY, and a graduate of Jackson Hole High School. He is a student at Georgetown University, where he is majoring in history and government. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Greyson for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know

he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Laura Capasso for her continued dedication as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Laura is a native of Wyoming and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming/Casper College Center where she is majoring in psychology and minoring in sociology. She has once again demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the time she has been with us.

I want to thank Laura for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.