Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jordan Brown for his hard work as an Indian Affairs Committee intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Jordan is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Sheridan High School. He attends Stonehill College in Massachusetts where he is majoring in political science and minoring in business administration. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the time he has been with us.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Daniel DeCecco for his hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Daniel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Green River High School. He attends the University of Wyoming, where he is majoring in business economics and international studies. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Brian Lynch for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Brian is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Encampment High School. He attends the University of Wyoming, where he is majoring in criminal justice with a concentration in pre-law. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Abigail Mulcahy for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Abigail is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Central High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in music. Throughout her internship, she has 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 last several months.

I thank Abigail 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.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kylie Negich for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Kylie is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Laramie High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in business administration. Throughout her internship, she has 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 last several months.

I thank Kylie 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.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Rachel Schmidt for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Rachel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from North Atlantic Regional High School. She graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she majored in international studies and Spanish. Throughout her internship, she has 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 last several months.

I thank Rachel 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.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Katherine Schum for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Katherine is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Cheyenne Central High School. She graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she majored in elementary education with a concentration in diversity. Throughout her internship, she has 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 last several months.

I thank Katherine 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.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Allison Strube for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Allison is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Laramie High School. She attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in German. Throughout her internship, she has 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 last several months.

I thank Allison 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.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Clayton Tanner for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Clayton is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Lander Valley High School. He attends the University of Wyoming/Casper College where he is majoring in English and journalism. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the time he has been with us.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Daniel Zabriskie for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Daniel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Natrona County High School. He attends the University of Wyoming where he is majoring in criminal justice and minoring in communication. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Centennial of Goshen County, WY.

Goshen County is remarkable. Its 13,250 residents are fortunate to live in the unique and diverse communities of Torrington, Lingle, Fort Laramie, LaGrange and Yoder. Nestled in a temperate basin along the North Platte River, the people have always connected with the land and its legacy. Officially recognized on February 24, 1911, the basin area has a rich history, one that gave the county its unique name. Legend has it an unknown traveler roamed the area known as Goshen's Hole. Though his identity was never discovered, he was most likely a trader or a fur trapper. The legend of the name's origins has long been celebrated and contended by the folks in this area.

Goshen County was a gateway to the Wild West, and its organization benefited from those headed westward. The Goshen Hole area, a popular stop for many, saw traffic from Native Americans, mountain men and fur traders. Thousands of emigrants following the California, Mormon and Oregon trails passed through the county by way of Fort Laramie. Established in 1834 along the banks of the Laramie River, the fort served as a trading post, post office, resting point and an important military base during the Plains Indian Wars. Today, the community of Fort Laramie works to preserve the fort's key role in our State's history.

Between 1876 and 1887, the area hosted part of the Cheyenne-Black Hills Stage Route between Cheyenne and Deadwood, SD. The route provided safe transport of freight, gold and passengers through land inhabited by Sioux Indians. The town of LaGrange began as one of many stage stops created to accommodate these passengers--it is now the oldest incorporated town in Goshen County. The development of the Union Pacific Railroad extension project offered new opportunities and connected the county to an ever-expanding West. Yoder began as a station along the extension line into the valley, and later prospered as an agricultural center. These

extended tracks--coupled with the stage routes--were vital to the county's establishment.

Today, the county is home to those looking to tame their own bit of the Wild West. Thanks to its temperate climate, agriculture is Goshen's primary industry. A highly developed irrigation system borrows waters from the North Platte River, the Hawk Springs reservoir and the Pathfinder Dam, which allows profitable crops of sugar beets, beans and wheat to prosper in the North Platte Valley. Small-acreage farms and sustainable growing practices bring the farming tradition into the 21st century. The county is consistently the leading beef producer in the state as over 200,000 head of cattle are raised each year. In addition, Goshen County is working to answer America's growing energy demands. Its proximity to the Niobrara Shale Formation provides the county with opportunities for future oil and natural gas production.

In honor of the 100th anniversary of Goshen County, I urge my colleagues to see this ``Valley of Abundance'' in person. I congratulate the citizens who have worked so hard to preserve the county's heritage. They should be proud to celebrate this landmark achievement.

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

Mr. President, might I inquire how much time is left on the Republican side?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Following my colleague from Utah who talked about getting the President engaged in these discussions, I noticed a large story in Thursday's New York Times: ``President on Sidelines in Critical Battle over Debt Ceiling.'' President on the sidelines.

We are at a time where we are facing the largest threat to our national security, and we cannot have the President on the sidelines.

When I talk about the single largest threat to our national security, I am not talking about a terrorist organization. I am not talking about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, and not famine. I am talking about our national debt. Our national debt is the threat. It is the greatest threat to our national security.

I will tell my colleagues this isn't a problem for one party, the other party; it is a problem for all of us as Americans. I am not the only one who is saying that. Actually, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said the most significant threat to our Nation's security is our debt. Let me repeat: The most significant threat to our national security is our debt. My colleagues may notice that Admiral Mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. He is speaking specifically about the debt. He is doing that because the debt ceiling isn't the problem; our national debt is the threat.

We have $14 trillion of debt, and it continues to grow. We are borrowing every day over $4 billion. That is over $2 million every minute.

We say: Where does the money come from? Well, of the money we spent last year in this country, over 41 cents of every dollar we spent--over 41 cents of every dollar--is borrowed money, a lot of it from foreign countries, and specifically from China. How do we stay a strong and independent leader of the world if we owe that kind of debt to anyone, especially to another country who may not have our best interests at heart?

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff clearly understands this. But it is not just our military leaders who understand this, families and business owners all across Wyoming understand it, and the American people understand it. We all know what the American people want. They want cuts to spending now, they want to control spending in the future, and they want accountability. They sure don't believe they are getting it out of Washington.

I received an e-mail this week from a gentleman from my hometown of Casper. He looked at this whole thing and he said:

The fact that the debt ceiling needs to be raised is where

the problem lies. This is a systemic problem that will either

be fixed or it will eventually destroy this Nation. I urge

you to stand strong and oppose any spending that exceeds

revenue. Using the debt ceiling, we understand, this could be

a painful path. It could lead to economic problems. My

forefathers put their lives at risk to prevent this kind of

idiocy that the Federal Government has become.

He is talking about a debt of $14 trillion.

He said:

Every one of my family members and neighbors is prepared to

weather the storm now to prevent future catastrophe.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are focused on the debt ceiling. It seems to me they have lost sight of the real problem, and that problem is the debt. Instead of working toward a higher debt ceiling, we need to be discussing ways to get our fiscal feet back on the floor, to get our fiscal house in order, and to provide the accountability the American people want.

I listened to the President's address to the Nation last Monday night. It seemed to be more of a campaign speech than an address about the issues facing this country. There was blaming going on, it seemed to me. Scare tactics, class warfare. He used the word ``balanced'' about seven times. He kept talking about a balanced approach.

Americans don't want a balanced approach; they want a balanced budget. They want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is the way we do it in Wyoming. That is the way many States do it. They want us to live within our means and balance the budget year after year after year.

There is a lesson we could learn from so many States around the country: Live within your means every year.

The American people want us to seek a real solution. They want a real solution that provides them with the peace of mind to know they will not be subjected to this sort of activity on a repeated basis. They want the peace of mind as well as the economic security that they believe as Americans--they believe as Americans--is a basis for this great country. They are looking for a solution that recognizes the current system in Washington is broken, and they are looking for a solution that says we realize we need to take immediate action to fix it.

Why is it broken? Why do we need immediate action? It is broken because we have failed to live within our means for so very long. It is also broken because this body, the Senate, has not had a budget for over 800 days. For over 800 days there has not been a budget in the Senate. One brought forth by the President failed; it got no votes. Ninety-seven people voted against it. Not one Democrat voted for the President's budget--not one.

It seems to be broken because Washington is more focused on short- term political gain instead of the long-term consequences of our actions. We saw that a little earlier with the discussions on the Senate floor. I am ready to vote on the proposal on the Senate floor. The minority leader recommended a vote immediately. Yet it was objected to by the majority leader.

Since the beginning of this entire debate, I have had a very clear bottom line. We need to avoid defaulting and implement the spending controls to get our finances back in order. What is the President's bottom line? The President said it:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this

debt ceiling through the next election into 2013.

The President's only bottom line: Ignore and avoid the biggest threat to our national security until after the next election.

Contrary to what the President wants, we cannot ignore, we cannot avoid this issue until after the next election. People all across the country are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the economy. They are worried about the debt, and they are worried about the spending. The American people want us to take action. They want us to cut costs. They want us to control spending. They want us to enforce accountability across every branch of the Federal Government. They would like us to put progress ahead of partisanship. They want us to put people before politics. The decisions that must be made aren't easy for either party. This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, Independents; it is about America. It is about this country.

People all across the country--and I have been in my office since early this morning, and we have been answering the phones. What I am hearing is what all of my colleagues should be hearing if they are answering their phones: Enough is enough. That is what the American people are saying.

We are now at the eleventh hour, and we must not lose sight of our goal. It is more important to find a real solution than it is to settle for a quick compromise.

So I look at some of these letters and calls and e-mails that have been coming in, and one is from Pinedale, WY. It says:

It is better to bite a small bullet now than a cannon shell

later on.

That is a Wyoming way of talking. That was from Pinedale, WY.

A couple from Casper, a different e-mail:

This country is in dire financial straits. Since I work for

the Federal Government, I have more to lose than most

Americans, but I don't want to give this administration a

blank check.

This is someone who works for the Federal Government: I don't want to give the administration a blank check.

We have to get this country back on track to fiscal

responsibility and this is the open debate. I realize my job

could be cut just to get there, but the national debt is too

large to ignore.

This is a Wyoming person talking, putting the country in front of politics and putting the country in front of himself.

He goes on to say:

We must get it under control or there is more to lose than

just our jobs. The economic consequences of not getting this

under control will devastate this country years down the

road. We have to start now before it is too late.

Then another from a woman in Casper who said:

It is time to cut up the Federal Government's credit card.

The current debt situation is an insult to all of us who live

within our means. People in the country live within their

means; States that balance their budget every year live

within their means. It is time for Washington to live within

its means.

People are tired of the budget tricks. They are tired of the accounting gimmicks. They are tired of the empty promises. That is what is affecting the people of this country. They want accountability, and it is our responsibility to provide it to them.

People are looking for peace of mind, for good judgment, and they want people to listen to them. Yet what I see are people focused on politics on the other side of the aisle at a time when the greatest threat to our Nation--to this great country, to America--is a national debt that is out of control and that is increasing at the rate of over $4 billion every year.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Nation watches the activities in the Capitol and on Capitol Hill as someone from the State of Wyoming, where we live within our means and balance our budget every year, and as a result we actually have a surplus in the State. Contrast that to what is happening in Washington with an incredible debt--$14 trillion--more than people can actually fathom.

But people understand spending more than they have or more than comes in, and families all around the country realize they can't do that. Well, in America, as a nation we have been doing that for many years-- spending money we don't have, sending out more than comes in, to the point we have had to borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow. Each time we borrow too much, which continues to happen, we have to raise the debt ceiling--the amount of money that can be borrowed.

The President has now asked that we raise the debt ceiling again, but he has asked that it be raised the largest amount in the history of our country--in the history of this great land. That has an impact on people and families all around the country. They are concerned because they know they can't spend more than they bring in, they can't spend more than they have.

They think back to the days of John Kennedy saying: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and people in Wyoming are concerned that it may switch one day to: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country must do for China because last year, of every dollar we spent in this country, 41 cents of it was borrowed, half of it from overseas, and a lot of it from China.

So how do we stay a great and strong nation, the leader of the world, when we owe that kind of money to another country--a country that does not necessarily have our own best interests at heart?

That is why as this debate and discussion is going on about the debt ceiling, the debt limit, people in Wyoming tell me their biggest concern is not the debt limit, it is the debt. The debt is the threat. It is a threat to our own national security. Those aren't just my words; those are the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt.

So I am so pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by my colleague from Nebraska, a neighbor, a next-door neighbor, a former Governor of Nebraska, who, as a Governor, lived with a system where he had to balance the budget every year, and the buck stopped with him.

So I ask my colleague from Nebraska, a former Cabinet Member who has run a major Cabinet and a department within the U.S. Government, perhaps he could share with us what was involved in having to make those tough decisions and actually being held to make those decisions.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Nebraska. I think about the fact that he had to use honest figures, honest accounting.

I see now a proposal by the majority leader that, to me, seems to be full of accounting gimmicks, tricks, things such as using money as savings that was never intended to be spent at all, saying we will save all of this money by not being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan for the next 10 years and counting $1 trillion in savings when there was never even an intention to spend that in the first place. I don't think anyone in this body or on Capitol Hill believes we will be at surge levels for the next 10 years in 2 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So I ask my colleague from Nebraska--and we are also joined by our colleague from South Dakota--he couldn't have done something like that in balancing his budget in Nebraska?

Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota is here, and he has been a Member of this body longer than I have. To me, this debt ceiling increase seems to be the largest in history by any standard, whether we include inflation or not. I think the previous largest one was $1.9 trillion, and that was also with this President.

So when we think about this President and what he inherited and where we are now, it seems to me--I would ask my colleague from South Dakota to respond--it just seems he is making it worse.

It is interesting because my colleague from South Dakota mentioned this figure, this two point some trillion dollars. People in Wyoming last week said: How do they come up with that number? Like the Senator, I agree that for every $1 they want to increase the debt limit, they should say we should find $1 of real savings, honest savings, savings you can point to, as the Senator needed to do as Governor, and as we believe here.

That is what the approach they are dealing with in the House does. They have come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling, deal with avoiding a default, and they extend this for a number of months.

People say: Well, how do you get this $2.4 trillion number? The President had a White House press conference last week, on July 22, and he said--it is astonishing. The President of the United States told the country:

The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend

this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

Not extend the debt ceiling so we can avoid default, not so we can focus on jobs and the economy and the overall debt and the spending, but so that--as he said, his bottom line, the only bottom line, is that we have to extend it beyond the next election.

Then the Treasury Secretary was on one of the television shows on July 24, and he said:

Most important, we have to lift this threat of default . .

. for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the

table through the election. . . .

This debt is the threat. This debt of nearly $15 trillion, going to over $20 trillion in the next couple years, to me is the threat. The elections can take care of themselves. I think the American people will be shocked, astonished, and disappointed to hear that is the President's only bottom line.

I do not know what the Senator's comments or thoughts are on that, but I am expecting better.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the column that has been referred to, the Charles Krauthammer column from this morning's Washington Post called ``The Great Divide.''

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 4 minutes.

I wanted to do that because I also want to have printed in the Record--and I will read just a couple of paragraphs--a letter that appeared in today's Casper Star Tribune by Eric Mitchell. It is titled ``Smarter than you think.'' He says:

I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young

to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt.

Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm

only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could

almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat

and get fish for family and friends.

He is from Crowheart, WY, a small community.

He said:

I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my

family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five

thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than

may dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything.

This is a 10-year-old. He said:

Government shouldn't try to buy everything. It is my job

and the people's job to buy the things we need. I don't want

the government to think for me. They don't know that I'm a

little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers tell

me what to do, because they aren't always responsible for

their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do with

their money. I'm smarter than they think I am. They should

follow the rules.

Here you have a youngster in Wyoming who knows of values, who is raised in a family where they live within their means, lives in a State where we balance our budget every year, and I think the lesson Eric has for the people of Wyoming and the people of this country is one we should listen to: We should live within our means, not spend more than we have, not continue to borrow. And the threat to our Nation, our greatest threat to our national security continues to be the debt, and it is incumbent upon this institution to deal with that.

I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I follow my colleague who mentioned our need to prevent default. The need we have--the reason we are here and why there will be a vote in the House and the Senate tonight--has to do with the need of our Nation to prevent default, and also, of course, the need to cut spending. Our problem is that we spend too much. Americans all around the country are calling in to Members of the House and Senate and saying: Hey, let's get things under control and let's cut the spending.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, I am happy to see with the proposals being brought forth, are beginning to understand what my constituents in Wyoming have known from the very beginning: Americans are not taxed too little, Washington spends too much. But the President seems to be more concerned about the next election than about the next generation of Americans.

I was astonished last week when the President was addressing the Nation and he talked about what his bottom line was in this whole debate. He said:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this

debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

This was the President of the United States saying this:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this

debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

Since 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times. On average, the debt ceiling is usually for about 8 months. But now the folks on the other side, and the President, are calling for the largest debt ceiling increase in history and it is designed to last a lot longer than 8 months--almost for a year and a half, as the President wants it to go into 2013; and specifically, as he said, through the next election.

The President's Treasury Secretary has essentially said the same thing. He said:

We have to lift this threat of default from the economy

for, you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that

threat off the table through the election.

Well, if the President and the Treasury Secretary get their way, they will be able to ignore the single biggest threat to our national security until after the next election. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said: The greatest threat to our national security is the debt.

The President could have gotten what he wanted last week--which is an increase in the debt ceiling beyond the election--when the House passed its cut, cap, and balance legislation. I was one of the original cosponsors of that in the Senate. I was in favor of it, supported it, and continue to support that. Instead, the President issued a veto threat. He told Democrats in the Senate to kill it. After all, they are still the majority party.

The Senate Democrats, I believe tonight, will have the power to save our country's finances once again. They can do that by passing the Boehner plan--pass it through this body and send it to the President's desk for him to sign. Instead, the majority leader has said no Democrat--not one--will support this plan. It has what the President wants. It raises the debt ceiling. It lets us, as a nation, avoid default. But it doesn't take us beyond the election.

It is interesting. It would seem support by the Democrats for this plan would clearly signal their desire to continue working to rein in Washington's wasteful spending, to get our fiscal house in order. But that doesn't seem to be the signal the President wants to send. The Boehner plan is the only plan currently on the table that can get through the House of Representatives and protect us from default.

Republicans have put forward plan after plan. Democrats and the White House have done nothing but criticize from the sidelines. The White House Press Secretary has even said:

Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having

it voted up or down and likely voted down.

That is what he said. He said the Democrats have even sent a letter asking for a long-term debt increase. But how can we have a long-term debt increase if they have no plan to get there? The White House Secretary claimed recently the President's plan is well-known. He said:

There is no plan that has been offered, certainly in the

last several months, about which more detail is known.

I say: Where are the details? I want to know how I could get this well-known plan and share it with my constituents back home in Wyoming. How

did the CBO score this plan that, according to the President's Press Secretary, is a plan about which so much detail is known? Where is it? What is the CBO score? Where is the text of it? How can we read it and bring it here and discuss or debate it?

These things don't exist--neither a CBO score nor a text--because the White House has continually refused to release a plan, even with pleas coming from Congress and from the media. I can understand why the President might be reluctant, since the time he last brought a budget to this body it was defeated 97 to 0. Not one Democrat voted in support of what the President had proposed--not one. No one supported the President's budget plan.

There is a Reid plan being proposed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Reid plan cuts about $2.2 trillion from our budget over the next 10 years. But if you dig a little deeper, you find these so-called cuts are accounting gimmicks. The House Budget Committee looked at the Reid plan and their assessment was not very flattering. Let me quote from that assessment:

Reid's plan relies on the inaccurate assumption that surge-

level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is scheduled to

continue over the next decade.

No one in America, and I would hope no one in the White House, believes that surge level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is scheduled to continue over the next decade. But the plan endorsed by the President relies on such an inaccurate assumption. Why is he trying to mislead the American people? The Democrats are claiming to save money by cutting spending that was never, ever going to be spent in the first place. This is the strongest possible proof the White House is not realistically dealing with the situation and is not, in my opinion, serious about realistically and reliably cutting the debt.

In fact, even if you assume the Reid plan would work, it wouldn't cut spending fast enough to keep up with the spending the President is doing. The President wants to borrow at least $2.4 trillion to get him through the election--to get him into 2013. But the last draft of the floor plan we are going to be asked to discuss cuts $2.2 trillion over 10 years while raising the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion. It would take over a decade to pay back what this President wants to borrow over the next year and a half. So we would still be borrowing at a much higher rate than we are cutting. That is not responsible leadership. Responsible leadership would be to recognize the solution to our country's financial woes, and that solution is to avoid default, while consistently cutting spending and balancing our books the way that families do. That solution would require us to keep working until we get it right. That is the theory at the heart of Speaker Boehner's plan.

The President talks about wanting a balanced approach. That means different things to different people. When the President is talking about wanting more taxes, I think what Americans want is actually a balanced budget. Speaker Boehner will bring us one step closer to that balance by forcing a vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I look forward to voting for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

We live under a constitution in the State of Wyoming, and from the very beginning we have balanced our budget. As a result, we have excess money and scholarships available to all students to study at our universities and community colleges, because year after year we live within our means.

The President talked a bit about public opinion being important in this debate. Yet he is opposed to a balanced budget constitutional amendment. In a recent Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll, 65 percent of Americans say they support a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So where is the respect for that public opinion? The Boehner plan works because its authors have listened to the American people.

The White House refuses to seriously confront the problems facing our Nation, and Democrats are trying to shut down the only plan that can pass the House and save us from default. I am alarmed at their denial about how to solve these problems. The President must not veto America into default. It is time we pass a real plan that cuts spending and avoids default. We don't need to wait until midnight on August 1 or August 2. We can do it, and we should do it today.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today having listened to my colleagues and looking at the most recent job data, which shows the effects of our struggling economy. Unemployment is going up, wages are going down, and there are concerns all around the country with jobs, the economy, the debt, and spending.

I have to say, I certainly believe, as somebody who has practiced medicine for 25 years in Wyoming and taken care of families all around the Cowboy State and been very involved in the debate over the health care law, that the President's health care law makes matters worse, absolutely makes matters worse.

The President's health care law makes matters worse by forcing employers to either offer government-approved health insurance or pay higher expenses. Each day it becomes obvious to me the new health care law is designed to ultimately end employer-provided coverage altogether and to encourage Americans to join government-run exchanges. That is why, as a doctor, I come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. Under this law businesses are permitted to drop out of paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The fine is about $2,000 per employee. This number is far smaller than what it would actually cost the business to provide family health benefits to each of their employees.

So what happens with small businesses in this country? Well, they are

going to face an ever-clearer incentive to drop coverage for the people they employ. They are not required to pay this fine for the first 50 workers who lose coverage. So the question is, Where are these people supposed to go? Where do they go for their insurance? How does it work?

The President promised them if they like what they have, they can keep it. Yet the incentives built into the health care law seem to be encouraging employers to drop their employees. So where do they go?

Well, the new health care law sets up what are called health care exchanges for these people to enter. Whether they want to or not they will be forced to go that way. These exchanges are shorthand for insurance markets where as much as 80 percent of the cost of the family's insurance could be actually borne by taxpayers. Under these circumstances, the natural response is for businesses to drop coverage for their employees altogether and then simply offer them some less expensive cash benefits.

Meanwhile, what happens to the employees who are going to lose the coverage they may like and then try to replace it because that is what is going to happen? They will have to replace it with a plan Washington mandates. That is of concern to a lot of Americans, and this may be very bad news for the patient and is really bad news for taxpayers.

Experts predict the annual cost to provide government insurance subsidies could cost up to nine times more than what the White House originally claimed. If that isn't proof enough the health care law is the wrong prescription to help America's job creators continue offering coverage to their workers, let's take a look at some of the things that have just come out in the last week.

This week, on Monday, July 25, the National Federation of Independent Business--a group that represents small businesses all around the country--released an astonishing new report. The NFIB surveyed 750 small businesses. These are small businesses of less than 50 employees. The survey asked these small businesses if they planned to drop health insurance coverage should their employees become eligible for this government subsidy to buy health insurance in the so-called exchange. More than one-quarter of the small businesses who offer coverage today--over one-quarter of the small businesses that offer coverage today--said they were very likely to drop coverage. I repeat: Very likely to drop coverage. Another 31 percent said they are somewhat likely to drop coverage; that they needed to look into it to find the specifics.

When we take a look and add the ones who are very likely and somewhat likely to drop coverage, we are looking at over half the small businesses in this country dropping insurance coverage and effectively dumping their employees into the government-run exchange.

The small business group in the survey and the response from these small businesses prompted the Wall Street Journal to print an editorial highlighting this data. It is entitled ``The Flight to the Exchanges.'' When I read this, I said: Gee, I couldn't have said it better myself.

The President's health care law wraps businesses in reams of bureaucratic redtape and uncertainty. Adding insult to injury, on Monday, July 11, of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services released yet another proposed regulation mandated by the health care law. The Obama administration issued its proposed insurance exchange regulation. What the rules do is give the States the specific framework they must use to set up a program or an exchange with this Washington-approved and mandated insurance. Here we go again, another example of where this administration takes roughly 30 pages from the health care law and turns it into 340 pages of bureaucratic Washington rules and regulations.

Of course, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is trying to sell this new rule as offering competition and uses the word ``flexibility.'' But nothing could be further from the truth. How flexible can a 347-page Washington rule be when it is a rule that contains the word ``must'' 580 times and includes the word ``require'' 811 times? How flexible can that Washington rule actually be?

Well, after examining all the rule's ``musts'' and ``requires,'' one thing is very clear: This administration is paying lipservice to State flexibility while their policy is promoting a Washington-mandated, Washington-dictated, Washington-enforced approach. This regulation details a very complex and confusing process that States are going to have to follow. The States have to follow these confusing rules in an effort to prove to the Department of Health and Human Services they meet its Washington mandates to set up and run the insurance exchanges, and they have very little time to do it. So this administration creates onerous new mandates and then fails to give States ample time to meet their overwhelming set of requirements.

Let's put this into context for the States. Comments of the administration's proposed rules are due this September 28. Typically, it can take the Department of Health and Human Services 6 months to review those comments about the rules and issue a final rule. That means we would likely see a final rule in March of 2012. Remember, there are significant details missing from these exchange regulations. This regulation is only part of the details States need to review before they can decide whether to run a health insurance exchange on their own or let the Federal Government do it.

The administration has yet to release rules explaining the health care law's essential health benefits package, the individual eligibility to participate in the exchanges, quality standards for the exchanges, and quality standards for the participating insurance plans. Those details may not come out until October or November of this year. This means States still do not know what the minimum set--the minimum set--of health services individuals, small businesses, and insurers will have to offer in the exchange. Pending missing details and further rules expected to come from the administration this fall, final rules-- final rules--may be in place finally in May or June of 2012. States would then have to be prepared to submit their plan in June of 2012 to Health and Human Services to be certified.

But what happens if the rules aren't out by then? Many State legislatures end their sessions by June, making complying with this tight time line extremely difficult, if not impossible. It seems to me this administration will have had 2 years to post their final regulations while the States may have only 2 months to comply.

What happens if a State isn't ready? They say have no fear; Washington is here to help. That is what they say. If the Department of Health and Human Services says a State's insurance exchange is not in compliance, then Washington will swoop in and set up its own program. This is often called the Federal fallback or the federally facilitated exchange, big fancy words for Washington bureaucrats telling States what they have to do.

The irony of all this is the administration's rules offer very few details explaining what this Federal fallback exchange will look like, so the States don't even know what happens if the Federal fallback comes into play.

Is the Department of Health and Human Services creating a stealth, back-door Federal exchange? If a State doesn't have adequate time to meet all the operational program requirements and the burdensome review process, it sounds to me like the Obama administration will then take control of the States.

Why should a State such as Utah, for example, that has created an especially designed insurance marketplace be forced to comply with onerous and costly requirements of this rule? If they are not willing to comply, will they face the consequences that Washington will make the final decision? States should be encouraged to create innovative solutions that meet the unique needs of their constituents, not forced to follow a one-size-fits-all laundry list of Washington mandates.

This is why I returned to the floor today, as a physician who has practiced medicine for a long time, with a doctor's second opinion, to tell you I believe this health care law is one that is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and it is bad for taxpayers. It is why I believe it

is important we repeal and replace this health care law.

Madam President, I yield the floor.