Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record an article written by Bobbie Frank, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts and published on July 16, 2011, in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. The article's title is ``Muddy waters: EPA, Army Corps Seek to Define More Jurisdiction as Federal.''

I have concluded, just as this article has, that the Clean Water Act, CWA, jurisdictional guidance being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction. This unprecedented exercise of power will allow EPA to trump States rights, and vitiate the authority of State and local governments to make local land and water use decisions. This is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities.

Enormous resources will be needed to expand the CWA Federal regulatory program. Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the CWA's mandates and costs of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer permitting delays. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in Wyoming and across the United States. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, ranching, electric transmission, transportation, energy development, and mining will all be affected, and thousands of jobs will be lost.

In May of this year, 19 Senators joined me in a letter to EPA expressing our strong opposition to this guidance. I will continue to fight to protect our States from this Washington power grab.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I referred.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous subsequent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today because we are discussing the cut, cap, and balance legislation, which I support. This gets back to a poster I have had at home with my kids over the years. I have a copy of it here. It is called ``the two penny difference.'' It says that if you earn a dollar and you spend the 99 cents, you are OK. But spend $1.01 and you are heading for trouble. This is from many years ago.

Today, spending seems more fashionable than saving. What once was called ``poor money management'' is now called ``deficit spending.'' Whatever it is called, it leads to inevitable headaches for people, companies, and even for governments.

Frankly, that is the situation in which we find ourselves today, a major headache, because as a nation we have continued to spend money we don't have. As a result, we have been borrowing money, significant amounts of money. Actually, it is about $4 billion a day. A lot of it we are borrowing from overseas, and much of it from China. You say, how does one maintain oneself as an independent, strong, and forceful nation when it owes that sort of debt to someone else?

What the American people have told me as I traveled around my State is that Americans believe--and the people of Wyoming clearly believe-- they want Washington to cut spending, not increase taxes. The White House doesn't seem to hear that message. They are ignoring it, tuning it out. They have admitted they don't have a plan to cut Washington wasteful spending, and actually the President doesn't think he needs one. I will quote the White House press secretary:

Leadership is not proposing a plan.

You know, it is saddening, but it is not surprising given this White House's track record of changing positions, saying one thing and doing another, and nobody can predict what they will do. Last week, the President said he would not support a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. He even warned the House majority leader: ``Don't call my bluff.'' We have all seen it on television. Now we know it was a bluff.

The President is now saying he might welcome a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. Yesterday, the President announced--or it was announced by his spokesman--that they would consider the short-term increase. So it is hard to tell what they are thinking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A lot of times it depends which way the wind is blowing. White House officials aren't the only ones who think it is better to not propose a plan. The story in Roll Call yesterday said that the senior Senator from New York warned the Democrats to not release a plan. The article even said they told the budget chairman not to propose a budget because it would give others around the country something to shoot at.

We have been here for over 800 days since a budget was passed through the Senate, and a Senator tells the chairman of the Budget Committee don't let them see the budget. According to this article, it said he thought it was politically helpful to spend time ``attacking corporate jet owners and defending entitlements.''

Our entitlements are going to be bankrupt in just over 10 years, and some folks don't want to produce a plan to save them or to strengthen them. That is what we are hearing on the floor of the Senate.

People often try to figure out how large this debt is that we have. We spend more on interest on our debt--just interest--each and every day than it would cost to buy several hundred corporate jets, which the senior Senator from New York is railing against. And that is just the interest alone on the debt. That is what kind of money we owe.

This isn't the kind of leadership America needs right now. Even though the White House and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to send different signals each day, Republicans remain committed to cutting spending. In fact, we put forward the only plan that has passed either House of Congress. It is called cut, cap, and balance. It will cut spending. The American people realize we continue to spend money we don't have. It will cap future spending, and it will require Washington to balance its budgets. Wyoming does that every year. Every other alternative in the Congress, on the Hill, around town, is either undefined or unfinished or only speculative.

I am pleased that the Senate will soon vote on cut, cap, and balance, which is a plan that is good for our country. It is common sense that when Washington is $14 trillion in debt, we must cut spending. When Washington borrows $4 billion a day, we must cap future spending. When Washington borrows $2 million every single minute, we must learn to balance our budget.

Americans understand our country can't continue down this same track. We cannot continue to spend money we don't have. Cut, cap, and balance is the best plan for America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have just about every week since the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I have great concerns about the law that was forced through this Senate.

I come to the floor because it seems that the more Americans find out and learn about this health care law, the less they like it. A majority of Americans now in national polls say they want out. They absolutely want out.

Since October of 2010, the administration has granted waivers-- waivers--to unions, businesses, insurers, and actually to whole States because they cannot afford the health care law's burdensome mandates.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services continues to release more waivers and did so again last Friday. They have now granted a total of 1,471 annual benefit limit waivers, and this has covered 3.2 million Americans.

That is why I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will allow every American--every American--to apply for a waiver from the President's health care law.

Under my bill, any American can submit a waiver application seeking relief from any or all of the health care law's mandates. All those Americans will have to do is simply show what unions and corporations have shown in order to get their waivers--nothing more, nothing less.

Waivers will be granted to individuals who show that the health care law is either increasing their insurance premiums or decreasing their access to benefits. That is all they have to show.

So far, this administration has ignored most Americans demand for a way out of the health care law, and Americans are looking for a way out of it. Instead, this administration has granted half the waivers--half the waivers--to people who get their health coverage through unions. Although those people represent a very small percentage of the workers in America, they got half of all the waivers. It is neither fair nor is it reasonable.

These are the same unions--the same unions--that lobbied for and supported the health care law. But now that they have actually read it and found out what is in it, even though it has been passed--too late now; we thought too late--but they have been getting waivers so they do not have to live under the mandates of the health care law.

We are talking about unions such as the Service Employees International Union. This is what they said about the health care law. These are people who lobbied for the health care law. Now they have found out what is in it, and they say to live under it would be financially impossible. A union that lobbied for the health care law now says it would be financially impossible to live under it.

It does not just apply to that union; it applies to Americans all across this great land. So I do not think any Americans should have to bear financially impossible costs because of the law.

The financially impossible mandates and elements of this bill have absolutely become more obvious to more Americans as they have taken the time to look at the rules and the regulations. That is why, frankly, this steady drip of waivers coming out of Health and Human Services-- giving waivers to many of their friends--has become such an embarrassment for this administration and why they actually recently abruptly changed the rules.

In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that all employees and organizations that cannot afford the law's crushing mandates--and there are many--must jump through a new set of hoops. It used to be that they would get a 1-year waiver. Now all employers and organizations, even those that have already gotten a waiver, must apply for long-term waivers by September of this year. The long-term waivers will last all the way until 2014.

Instead of ending the waiver process, the administration should extend the waiver process to include all Americans. That is what my bill does. If not, families, companies, and organizations of all sizes will soon be hit with these crushing mandates.

Under the administration's current plan, employers will be forced to provide $750,000 worth of coverage to every employee this year. By next September, that number balloons to $2 million. Beyond that, there is no limit--it continues to go higher and higher. So if you are an employer and you cannot afford $2 million in coverage next year, well, you better apply for your waiver now, that long-term waiver, before September of this year; otherwise, you are going to be stuck with costs that only get higher and higher. This, to me, is what the administration wants to do because they do not want to put out waivers in 2012, an election year, which is going to cause additional attention to how unpopular this health care law continues to be.

Let's talk about some Americans who get together--people in any community, in my State, in your State, Mr. President--and want to start a new business. They are thinking about starting a new business after September, thinking about, Do we do it this summer? Do we wait until the fall? If these people want to start a new business and hire people and they want to start that business after September, they are going to be faced with two difficult choices: They can offer high-cost, government-approved health insurance--that is what the health care law says--making it very expensive for them to try to open a new business, to try to hire workers, to put America back to work--we are at a time when there is 9.2 percent unemployment in this country--or these people trying to start a new business can refuse to offer coverage at all because they can't afford the health care law's sky-high mandates.

So the incentives in the health care law will encourage businesses to do what? Well, to drop insurance coverage if they are providing it right now. Under the law, businesses are permitted to drop out of paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The fine is going to be $2,000 per employee. The fine is far smaller than the exploding costs imposed by the health care law. So I think this explains why McKinsey & Company recently reported that up to 50 percent of employers are expected to stop offering employer-provided health care coverage.

The employees who are dumped--what happens to them? Well, they will be forced to get their insurance through a government exchange, an exchange run by Washington, which is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayers. They are going to be dumped into the exchange. The annual cost of subsidizing these ballooning numbers of insurance policies, by my calculation, is about $900 billion. Well, that is nine times higher than what the White House has claimed. In short, the taxpayers of this country will be stuck with a bill of nearly $1 trillion every year.

Well, I am going to continue to come to the floor week after week, continue to fight to repeal and replace this health care law with patient-centered care--patient-centered care--that lowers costs for all Americans and improves their care. So I will continue with the second opinions because until we are able to repeal and replace the health care law, I am going to move forward with what is now the Waive Act. This bill offers all Americans the freedom to choose--the freedom that has been taken away from them by the President's health care law. It gives them the right to seek and be granted a waiver out of the President's health care law. It is time to transfer power from Washington back to the American people. This will ensure they can get the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford.

Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have just about every week since the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I have great concerns about the law that was forced through this Senate.

I come to the floor because it seems that the more Americans find out and learn about this health care law, the less they like it. A majority of Americans now in national polls say they want out. They absolutely want out.

Since October of 2010, the administration has granted waivers-- waivers--to unions, businesses, insurers, and actually to whole States because they cannot afford the health care law's burdensome mandates.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services continues to release more waivers and did so again last Friday. They have now granted a total of 1,471 annual benefit limit waivers, and this has covered 3.2 million Americans.

That is why I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will allow every American--every American--to apply for a waiver from the President's health care law.

Under my bill, any American can submit a waiver application seeking relief from any or all of the health care law's mandates. All those Americans will have to do is simply show what unions and corporations have shown in order to get their waivers--nothing more, nothing less.

Waivers will be granted to individuals who show that the health care law is either increasing their insurance premiums or decreasing their access to benefits. That is all they have to show.

So far, this administration has ignored most Americans demand for a way out of the health care law, and Americans are looking for a way out of it. Instead, this administration has granted half the waivers--half the waivers--to people who get their health coverage through unions. Although those people represent a very small percentage of the workers in America, they got half of all the waivers. It is neither fair nor is it reasonable.

These are the same unions--the same unions--that lobbied for and supported the health care law. But now that they have actually read it and found out what is in it, even though it has been passed--too late now; we thought too late--but they have been getting waivers so they do not have to live under the mandates of the health care law.

We are talking about unions such as the Service Employees International Union. This is what they said about the health care law. These are people who lobbied for the health care law. Now they have found out what is in it, and they say to live under it would be financially impossible. A union that lobbied for the health care law now says it would be financially impossible to live under it.

It does not just apply to that union; it applies to Americans all across this great land. So I do not think any Americans should have to bear financially impossible costs because of the law.

The financially impossible mandates and elements of this bill have absolutely become more obvious to more Americans as they have taken the time to look at the rules and the regulations. That is why, frankly, this steady drip of waivers coming out of Health and Human Services-- giving waivers to many of their friends--has become such an embarrassment for this administration and why they actually recently abruptly changed the rules.

In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that all employees and organizations that cannot afford the law's crushing mandates--and there are many--must jump through a new set of hoops. It used to be that they would get a 1-year waiver. Now all employers and organizations, even those that have already gotten a waiver, must apply for long-term waivers by September of this year. The long-term waivers will last all the way until 2014.

Instead of ending the waiver process, the administration should extend the waiver process to include all Americans. That is what my bill does. If not, families, companies, and organizations of all sizes will soon be hit with these crushing mandates.

Under the administration's current plan, employers will be forced to provide $750,000 worth of coverage to every employee this year. By next September, that number balloons to $2 million. Beyond that, there is no limit--it continues to go higher and higher. So if you are an employer and you cannot afford $2 million in coverage next year, well, you better apply for your waiver now, that long-term waiver, before September of this year; otherwise, you are going to be stuck with costs that only get higher and higher. This, to me, is what the administration wants to do because they do not want to put out waivers in 2012, an election year, which is going to cause additional attention to how unpopular this health care law continues to be.

Let's talk about some Americans who get together--people in any community, in my State, in your State, Mr. President--and want to start a new business. They are thinking about starting a new business after September, thinking about, Do we do it this summer? Do we wait until the fall? If these people want to start a new business and hire people and they want to start that business after September, they are going to be faced with two difficult choices: They can offer high-cost, government-approved health insurance--that is what the health care law says--making it very expensive for them to try to open a new business, to try to hire workers, to put America back to work--we are at a time when there is 9.2 percent unemployment in this country--or these people trying to start a new business can refuse to offer coverage at all because they can't afford the health care law's sky-high mandates.

So the incentives in the health care law will encourage businesses to do what? Well, to drop insurance coverage if they are providing it right now. Under the law, businesses are permitted to drop out of paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The fine is going to be $2,000 per employee. The fine is far smaller than the exploding costs imposed by the health care law. So I think this explains why McKinsey & Company recently reported that up to 50 percent of employers are expected to stop offering employer-provided health care coverage.

The employees who are dumped--what happens to them? Well, they will be forced to get their insurance through a government exchange, an exchange run by Washington, which is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayers. They are going to be dumped into the exchange. The annual cost of subsidizing these ballooning numbers of insurance policies, by my calculation, is about $900 billion. Well, that is nine times higher than what the White House has claimed. In short, the taxpayers of this country will be stuck with a bill of nearly $1 trillion every year.

Well, I am going to continue to come to the floor week after week, continue to fight to repeal and replace this health care law with patient-centered care--patient-centered care--that lowers costs for all Americans and improves their care. So I will continue with the second opinions because until we are able to repeal and replace the health care law, I am going to move forward with what is now the Waive Act. This bill offers all Americans the freedom to choose--the freedom that has been taken away from them by the President's health care law. It gives them the right to seek and be granted a waiver out of the President's health care law. It is time to transfer power from Washington back to the American people. This will ensure they can get the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, our country is 2 weeks away from a deadline date, and this deadline is approaching because of Washington's constant inaction. To me, this deadline has to do with our national debt. The President, on the other hand, says it has to do with our debt limit, the amount of money we are allowed by law to borrow.

I believe it has to do with the amount of money we have already borrowed and the amount of money they want to continue to borrow. I believe as Americans we can do better. I believe as Americans we must do better. Our country needs for us to act.

The President has repeatedly said we have to deal with this issue now. Last week he asked the most fundamental question. He said: If not now, when? The clock is ticking.

We got a wake-up call from Medicare not too long ago when we found out that it will be bankrupt 5 years sooner than they initially thought, just over a decade from now. As a doctor who has practiced medicine a long time, I will tell you we have to strengthen Medicare. We know in 25 years the same will happen to Social Security. Unlike our debt limit which Congress can legislate away, strengthening Medicare, saving Social Security, that cannot simply be legislated away. We have to act now to prevent these programs from failing not just people on those programs today but also future generations.

The President has observed that we are in the eleventh hour when it comes to our debt ceiling, and the only clear path to raise the debt ceiling that has passed either House of Congress is the proposal that passed the House of Representatives last night, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This act would only raise the debt ceiling if we put our country on the fast track back to fiscal sanity. That is where we need to be, on the track to fiscal sanity. It is an approach the American people will tell us we need now more than ever.

Our creditors are getting restive. This week Fitch credit ratings warned if the United States does not take action to avoid default, we could lose our AAA credit rating.

Standard & Poor's has already warned that unless we cut our budget, our credit rating could be at risk. Wasteful Washington spending has already saddled our children with over $14 trillion of debt. If we default, this spending may also force them to pay punishingly high interest rates that will drain American dollars from our already sluggish economy.

I believe we will not default. We are already paying $6,000 a second on interest alone on our debt. For those of us with children, we know what this impact is going to be on them years and years into the future. Well, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would put us on the path to resolving the issue by cutting spending immediately, by capping spending in the future, and by forcing--finally forcing--Washington to live within its means. This is the sort of law that the country needs and that the President should actually welcome.

What has the President done? Well, he has threatened to veto this law, he says, if it crosses his desk. The President has threatened to veto the only plan that actually solves the problem that has passed either House of Congress.

Why? Well, the administration emphasizes ``public opinion'' as their reason for opposing the hard choices required by our debt crisis. But yet the President said they are opposed to a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Well, in a recent Mason Dixon poll, 65 percent of Americans say they support a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Where is that respect the President talks about for public opinion?

Finally, the administration has hidden behind catch phrases rather than debate the merits of cut, cap, and balance. They refer to it by a different name. Well, when I hear the White House spokesman talk about cut, cap and balance in a different way, I say: How is that ducking the issue to confront both our spending problem and the debt ceiling head on? That is not

ducking the issue; that is facing the issue.

When the President's spokesman talks about dodging the issue, I will say: How is it a dodge to support commonsense solutions to our spending addiction, such as a balanced budget amendment?

Then he used the phrase about dismantling. I say: How does stopping our government from going bankrupt count as dismantling? The White House has even admitted that they do not have a plan. You know what, they do not think they need one. Is that astonishing? The White House-- the United States, the most powerful country in the world--the White House does not think they need a plan at the eleventh hour. The White House Press Secretary just recently said: Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down and likely voted down.

The budget that was brought to this floor--the President's budget-- failed 0 to 97. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one Democrat voted for it. No one voted for what the President had proposed, no one of either party.

Perhaps the President ought to propose something new. Holding our country hostage to irresponsible Washington spending while trying to hit the economy with tax hikes is not leadership; it is denying the reality. Refusing to put forward a plan to resolve our spending crisis is not leadership; it is deferring the consequences.

Making the economy worse the way this administration has done for the past 2 years is not leadership, and it is hurting our country. The President's policies have made it worse--made the economy worse, made health care worse, made energy availability worse, housing worse. The policies have made it worse.

This administration can accuse cut, cap, and balance of ducking, and they can accuse it of dodging, and they can accuse it of dismantling, but the strategy coming out of the White House seems to be duck and cover. That is what we are seeing.

Anyone who knows the math knows this strategy was never acceptable before, and it is doubly unacceptable now. The amount of debt we owe right now is so high that it is hurting employment at home. Experts tell us our debt is costing us 1 million jobs. Spending like this makes it harder for the private sector to create new jobs, and the unemployment numbers that just came out show us at 9.2 percent unemployment.

With that kind of unemployment, energy prices are high, and people are noticing it in the quality of their lives. It is harder for American families to buy gas, buy groceries, buy cars, homes, pay tuition for their kids to go to college, and it is harder to create jobs for those kids who will be graduating this year and next year and every year until we get the spending under control.

Debt is not just a disaster for the distant future. Our debt is irresponsible. Our debt is unsustainable. Even our military leaders have condemned it. ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: The biggest threat to our national security is our debt.

The debt is the threat. It is not our enemies who are defeating us, it is our spending that is hurting us so very much. It is time for America to fight back. That is why I am supporting and have cosponsored cut, cap, and balance and will vote for it on the floor of the Senate.

This piece of legislation takes commonsense steps to get our country out of debt. It will immediately reduce spending by over $100 billion as a downpayment on our children's future. It will place a hard cap on spending so that it never reaches the unsustainable heights of the past 2 years. It will send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the American people for ratification, and it will prevent us from defaulting on our debt.

Passing this law is the kind of leadership that America deserves; and if the President wants to show he understands leadership, he should retract his veto threat and support this approach. I absolutely will support it when it comes to this body.

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

Mr. President. On July 24, 2011, Chief U.S. District Judge William F. Downes will retire after 17 years on the Federal bench in Wyoming.

Judge Downes has long recognized that for our democracy to survive, a strong judicial branch is necessary. As he acknowledged during his Senate Judiciary nomination hearing in 1994, the strength of the judiciary is not determined by activist judges and changing the law to achieve a desired outcome. Rather, a strong judiciary consists of judges who uphold the Constitution, are thorough in their decisions, have not formulated an opinion prior to a case being heard, and treat people with respect and decency. This was the standard that Judge Downes set for himself in 1994. By all accounts he achieved that standard in his courtroom.

Judge Downes, the grandson of Irish immigrants, has enjoyed the opportunity to welcome new citizens to our nation by performing Naturalization ceremonies. Cited as one of the highlights of his career, he has always said a Naturalization ceremony is one of the few times people come to the courthouse happy and leave even happier.

He began his public service early in life when he served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1968 to 1971. Though he did not make military service his career, his career in the law has been profoundly affected by his military service.

In an article that appeared in the 2007 June edition of the Wyoming Lawyer, Judge Downes discusses the important role played by the citizen jury system in our government. He quotes from a letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by

man by which the government can be held to the principles of

the Constitution.

In the same article, he describes two photos he keeps under the glass top of his desk. One photo is of his family on Easter Sunday in 1985. The other photo, from the spring of 2003, is of a 6-year-old boy named Tony, clutching a teddy bear, walking out of a church, wiping tears from his eyes. He had just attended the funeral of his father, MAJ Kevin G. Nave, USMC, who died on March 26, 2003, in the early stages of the Iraq war.

Judge Downes writes:

Kevin Nave died so that we might have the opportunity to

live under a Constitution which guarantees us the opportunity

of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

He ends his article with the following:

Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of this

Nation expected that we citizens would participate in the

governance of our nation and, by our efforts, make it a more

perfect union. If we judges and lawyers do our utmost to

uphold the constitutional right to trial by jury, we will

achieve the highest aspiration of our profession. For Tony's

sake, and for all our children, we can do no less.

Judge Downes achieved the highest aspiration of his profession. He has contributed to the governance of our Nation with distinction.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Judge Downes, a true American Patriot, for his service to Wyoming and to our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as someone who is back in my home State every weekend. As I talk to people and say: What is on your mind, they say what is on their mind are jobs, the economy, the Nation's debt, and the Nation's spending. I say: What do you think about things going on in Washington? They say the problem with Washington is it taxes too much, borrows too much, and the government grows bigger every day, and they say: What are we going to do about it? When we talk about the debt, the people of Wyoming have a clear understanding that the number is very large.

They say: What about the budget? As we get into the discussion, it comes down to: What budget? Where is the budget? It has been 800 days since a budget has gone through this body--over 800 days. You are talking more than 2 years. Why is that?

There was a vote on the budget earlier this year. There was the President's so-called budget, lost 97 to 0. Not even one Democrat voted for what the President had proposed. The news magazine The Economist called it a dishonest budget. In Wyoming, we balance our budget every year. We do not have a debt like the country has, the country with its $14 trillion debt. In Wyoming, the debt is zero because year after year we balance our budget, live within our means, spend only what comes in, and actually have money left over that we can invest in the people of our State. That is because from the beginning, when the constitution of our State was written, included right there in the constitution was a component saying: You shall balance the budget every year. Do not spend more than you have coming in.

To do that, one of the most useful things is that there actually be a budget, something to live within, something to look to as a guidepost, as a roadmap. I am still looking for one in this body. Where is it? Why have we not seen one? That is why I am coming to the floor today with a number of my colleagues to say: What is going on that it has been over 800 days with no budget, no opportunity to have the American people look to a roadmap to see where the country is headed?

We hear all the discussion about, are we headed to a default? What about the debt limit? What about the ceiling--is that going to be raised? The people say: What is the plan? What is the spending plan? What is the savings plan? I do not hear one coming for the majority party. I do not see one from the majority leader. I do not see one from the Budget Committee. I do not see one from the President. They are having discussions at the White House about how to try to get spending under control. Where is the President's plan?

What I hear from the President is that he wants to raise taxes. The people of Wyoming would say the best way for more revenue to come in is not to raise taxes on the people who are working, it is to put some of those 9.2 percent of Americans who are looking for work, put them to work, and then that money will come in as they pay taxes.

I come today to the floor with a number of my colleagues--Senator Sessions, the Senator from Alabama has arrived--and we are going to be engaged in a colloquy to discuss some of these issues.

We ought to be focusing on these 9.2 percent of Americans who cannot find work, millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. When I talk to the job creators, they are saying it is the President's position and his policies that have made matters worse--made matters worse with increasing health care costs as a result of the health care law, made matters worse as a result of the regulations that came out of Washington that add costs onto businesses, and making it worse in increased energy costs as the President continues to send energy jobs overseas, as he makes it harder and harder to explore for American energy.

I ask my colleague, Senator Sessions, to give us his thoughts, if I could, on the concerns we face as a nation without a budget, without a plan,

without a roadmap, at a time of astronomical deficits, huge numbers, numbers that are too high for people even to understand and comprehend.

(Mrs. McCASKILL assumed the chair.)

Madam President, I would say absolutely yes. If you are a family in Wyoming, I don't care if you are living in Casper or living in Kemmerer, either way you know you need to live within some construct of how much is coming in, how much you can spend--live within a budget. Families have budgets. They live within their budgets. The State of Wyoming has a budget. We have a balanced budget component of our constitution. It not only says we have to have a budget, it says we have to balance it. If you do not have a budget to begin with, I cannot understand how you can balance it.

Is it any surprise that we are $14 trillion in debt and we are borrowing $4 billion a day, $2 million a minute in this country, and we are borrowing a lot of it from China? It would seem we ought to be following the law--have a budget and then live within the budget, and it needs to be a responsible budget consistent with what is coming in.

The House has approved a budget. They presented a budget, debated a budget, discussed a budget, and passed a budget. There has been nothing in the Senate for over 800 days.

On the weekends, people at home tell me: We have to stop spending money we do not have. We expect better. We expect better of those who are elected to go to Washington and represent us. We expect better.

They also believe that the money they are sending to Washington--it is their money, not Washington's money--the money they are sending to Washington, people do not believe they are getting value for their dollar. If you asked ``Of every dollar you are sending in, how much value are you getting back,'' it is an alltime low--50 cents on the dollar. People don't think they are getting value.

People want an efficient government. That is not what they are finding today. They are finding amazing amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. Fundamentally, they are not finding a budget, a roadmap, a plan, and then life within that. That is why I come to the Senate floor with my colleague from Alabama today to say the law is specific--not just in the State of Wyoming but also in the United States--that we need to have a budget.

I would say the only reason I know is someone intentionally does not want to bring a budget to the floor of the Senate. If a budget were on the floor of the Senate, then we could look through it, read it, people at home could look through it, have some input, call, write, talk to us at townhall meetings, and say we ought to try to amend this proposal to spend less money over here, more money over there, and try to decide the best way to work together as a nation to improve opportunities for people in this country.

That is what a family budget does. They don't have to by law, but smart families do that. They make plans, they think ahead, and not just 3 months or 6 months, families look ahead and put money aside for college opportunities. They think about whether they will need a new car, a roof sometime down the line--what will they need? That is what a budget is all about.

I see no reason fundamentally why there is no budget proposed by the majority party here on the floor for all of the country to take a look at, all of the country to say: Yes, change this, more here, less there, prioritize, and let the country work.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a Member of the Senate--specifically, though, as a Senator from Wyoming because in Wyoming our families know they have to live within their means. Wyoming is a State that lives within its means. In Wyoming, our very constitution requires that our State live within its means.

Washington has a total debt now that is over $14 trillion and continues to climb every day. Wyoming's total debt is zero. How did Washington fail where Wyoming succeeded? Well, in Washington, this city overspends in Washington there is nothing really to stop it. In Wyoming, we live within our means because our constitution demands that we balance our budget every year. It is time for Washington to take a lesson from Wyoming and the other States that balance their budgets every year.

The President says, ``All of us agree that we should use this opportunity to do something meaningful on debt and deficits.'' Well, passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is possibly the most meaningful thing we could do.

This city's finances are in disarray. Our Nation's finances are in disarray. It has been over 800 days since this body has passed a budget resolution. Since the last time a full budget was passed, our country has spent over $7 trillion, and $3.2 trillion of that was money we did not have.

Our total debt now is over $14 trillion. People say: How much money is that? The number is astonishingly large. Let's try to put it a little bit into perspective. Every day, Washington borrows over $4 billion. We borrowed over $4 billion yesterday, $4 billion today, and if someone will lend us the money, we will borrow over $4 billion tomorrow. That is over $2 million a minute, every minute. Every single day, Washington borrows enough money to buy tens of thousands of new homes. Every single hour, Washington borrows enough to buy nearly 2 million barrels of oil. Every single minute, Washington borrows enough to send 53 students to private college for a full year. Every single second, Washington borrows enough to buy two new automobiles. We paid over $200 billion last year in interest on the debt alone. The President talks about a tax on private jets. That is enough money--the interest alone--to buy over 200 private jets every day.

It is not enough to think about this in the large terms; you have to try to put it in terms that people understand. Because we are spending and borrowing so much money, it is difficult to put it into terms that people grasp and that they see. It is good to hear the President acknowledge that we have to stop making more than the minimum payments in order to pay off and deal with this incredible debt.

The President has also announced his willingness to make a deal that he says involves meaningful changes to Medicare, to Social Security, and to Medicaid. To his credit, the President has accepted that much of the problem with saving these programs springs from his own side of the aisle. He says, and I agree, that now is the time to do it.

The Associated Press quoted the President asking the most important question of all: ``If not now, when?'' Well, the clock is ticking. In just 13 years, Medicare will be bankrupt. We have to strengthen Medicare. In 25 years, the same will be true of Social Security. Unlike our debt limit, this is not a limit Congress can simply legislate away. We have to act now to prevent these programs from failing not just today's generation but future generations.

The Senate minority leader said: I commend the President for putting Social Security and Medicare on the table.

He is correct in doing that. So with the President seeing the light on so many issues, why are we still talking about finding a solution instead of actually getting one passed here in the Congress? Because, for all that he claims to understand, the President has still fallen back on the same tax-and-spend policies that made this economic situation worse. It is clear that the policies of this administration have taken a tough problem and may have made it worse. On the President's inauguration day, the unemployment rate in this country was just under 8 percent. Today, it is 9.2 percent. Every American child who is born today will owe roughly $45,000. Let's compare that to the day President Obama was inaugurated. Every child then owed roughly $35,000. So in just those short years, the debt on a child born in America, the debt they are born with has gone up from $35,000 to $45,000. These disturbing economic results are the direct result of the past 2 years of policies.

Liberals want to hold the U.S. credit rating hostage for more tax hikes, and the President is leading the charge. He is trying to push more tax hikes despite the very fact that even he has now said it is the worst time to raise taxes. Back in 2009, President Obama said: The last thing you want to do is raise taxes during a recession. So why, then, is he calling for $400 billion in tax increases today? And why is the Senate Budget Committee chairman trying to one-up the President by calling for $2 trillion? Well, of course, the President will not admit he wants to raise taxes. He likes to use wiggle words. He uses words such as ``revenue'' or the ``spending in the Tax Code'' instead. But when you translate this Washington doublespeak, it comes out ``higher taxes.''

With the spin exposed, liberals are trying another tack: They are trying to claim they will delay the tax increases until the economy recovers. They are not saying they are not going to raise taxes; they say: Let's put it off for a while. This week, the President showed what this really means. He said, ``Nobody is going to raise taxes right now.'' He said, ``We are talking about potentially 2013 and the outyears.'' So, in other words, this is not really about waiting until the economic recovery comes; it is about waiting until 2013, until after the President's reelection campaign.

More troubling still, the President has already signaled that he wants to spend more in the future. Our problem is not that we are taxed too little, it is that we spend too much. Yet the President wants to spend even more. At his press conference, he said he is only tackling our debt so we can be ``in a position to make the kind of investments I think are going to be necessary to win the future.'' When the President talks about investment, it is common knowledge that what he is talking about is spending.

Finally, for all his posturing about getting this done, now it is really the President who seems to want to kick the can down the road. His plan may cut trillions, but Washington would be able to take as long as 10 years to do it.

Minority Leader McConnell has already blown the liberal cover on these very cynical political bluffs. He said, ``The President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default.'' Well, Republicans choose none of the above.

As a doctor, I have taken the Hippocratic Oath. The oath says: Do no harm.

Raising taxes will harm our economy. Cutting spending at a snail's pace will do very little to help. We have to tackle our fiscal problems today. The first step toward solving these problems should be to pass an amendment to our Constitution requiring Washington to balance its budget.

A balanced budget amendment would require Washington to spend no more money than it takes in every year. Such an amendment would force Washington to live within its means as many States do and as families across the country do.

I come to the floor as cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment. As a matter of fact, every Republican in the Senate is a cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment, 47 Republican Senators. Every one is a cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment. We are united and will remain united. This is a commonsense approach, and it will show the American people that they can trust their government with their money once again because right now the American people have little confidence they are getting value for the money they send to Washington.

I believe we need to lead today, not defer leadership until tomorrow. Americans are courageous; they deserve a courageous government. That is why I know the American people overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The President said the other day that it is time to ``eat our peas.'' We all saw him on television saying it is time to ``eat our peas.'' I agree with another President, Ronald Reagan, who said it is time to ``starve the beast.'' The beast is Washington and the Washington wasteful spending that the American people are seeing every day.

Mr. President, Americans pay their debts. They want their country to do so too. It is time for Washington to listen. It is time for a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and then it is time to start paying off this massive debt.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to compliment two Wyoming ski resorts for their dedication to environmental excellence. Grand Targhee and Jackson Hole Mountain Resort each received the 2011 National Ski Areas Association Golden Eagle Award for Environmental Excellence. The Golden Eagle Award is the most prestigious environmental honor given by the ski industry.

Grand Targhee received the award in the small ski area category for their efforts to reduce energy consumption. Grand Targhee's stated goal was to reduce energy use by 10 percent below their previous 5-year average. By implementing better management practices, investing in energy-efficient upgrades and retrofits, and weatherizing their buildings, the resort almost doubled their original goal by realizing an 18 percent reduction in energy use. Environmental success is not new for Grand Targhee. In 2008 they received the Silver Eagle Award for Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling, followed by their first Golden Eagle Award in 2009.

In the medium-sized ski area category, the Golden Eagle Award was presented to Jackson Hole Mountain Resort. This recognition is the result of a long-term dedication to environmental management. For the past 5 years, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's environmental management system has met the 140001 standards for the International Organization for Standardization, ISO. This lofty benchmark has been achieved now by only two resorts in the United States. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's steadfast approach to sustainable environmental management practices is an ongoing commitment. This award is the fourth time Jackson Hole Mountain Resort has been honored. In 1995 they also received the Golden Eagle Award, followed by Silver Eagle Awards for Excellence in Energy Conservation and Clean Energy and Excellence in Visual impact in 2003 and 2005, respectively.

Mr. President, Grand Targhee and Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's ongoing commitment to environmental excellence are outstanding examples of the private sector working to preserve our natural resources. Wyoming is a wonderful place to live, work, and recreate. I want to congratulate each resort and their employees for hard work and dedication. The National Ski Areas Association Golden Eagle Award is a tribute to their achievements. Because of their efforts, the natural wonder of Wyoming's landscapes will continue to be enjoyed now and in the future by those who ski our slopes.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have week after week since the health care bill was signed into law, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law because the President repeatedly made promises to the American people as the health care bill was being debated and even after the health care law was signed. He promised to improve, not hurt, the quality of medical care in this country.

We now know the President's health care law actually makes the problem of health care in this country worse. In fact, since this bill was signed into law, we have learned that it makes the cost of health care worse. We know it makes the American's ability to get health care worse and the ability of individuals to keep the care they like--it makes their ability to keep that care worse.

Today, I would like to first talk about the cost of care.

President Obama promised American families they would see their health insurance premiums go down because of the health care law, and he actually told them they would go down by over $2,000 per family. Well, now we know that is not the case. In fact, Americans have seen their premiums increase 19 percent since the time the President signed his health care bill into law.

I was looking at the front page of the Sheridan Press, Sheridan, WY, yesterday. Headline, front page:

Health care premium increase. County administrative

director said the county's cost to provide health care

coverage for its employees will increase by about $360,000

this year.

We are talking about 1 county--1 out of 23 counties in Wyoming, $360,000 for county employees.

You know, throughout this entire health care debate, the President promised the American people that if they liked their health care plan, his health care law would let them keep it--another broken promise. Employers all across the country have made it clear that the health care law's mandates are too expensive and threaten their ability to offer insurance to their employees.

A recent study by McKinsey & Company, which is a reputable national consulting firm, produced a report entitled ``How U.S. health care reform will affect employee benefits.'' They surveyed over 1,300 employers across diverse industries, geographies, and employer sizes. The results confirmed what Republicans and American workers and their families knew all along, and they knew it long before the President and Washington Democrats forced this health care law down their throats. Overall, the report says, 30 percent of employers will probably stop offering employer-sponsored coverage in the years after 2014 when the Obama health care law goes fully into effect. Among employers with a high awareness of the health care reform law and what is specifically in the law, then the proportion of those who will definitely or probably stop offering coverage jumps to 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue other options. So at least 30 percent of employers would actually gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated their employees for the change through other benefit offerings and higher salaries.

Apparently, the President's promise that ``if you like the health insurance you have today, you can keep it'' translates into ``you may very well lose your coverage.''

As former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin's analysis confirms, if employers decided to drop coverage--which is in their economic best interest to do in many cases based on their economic evaluation--the cost of Federal insurance subsidies would skyrocket.

Remember, the White House and Democrats in Congress met behind closed doors. They acted swiftly and covertly to pass a law without regard for how its provisions would impact each and every American family.

Then the question is, Will Americans actually have the ability to get medical care they need from a doctor they want at a price they can afford? The President promised that his law would increase access to affordable care. Some groups tell a different story.

In April 2010, a month after the President signed his health care plan into law, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimated that based on graduation and training rates, this country would have a shortage of 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years. In May of the same year, the American Medical Association issued the results of its survey showing the impact of low payment rates and the threat of future payment cuts on Medicare patients' access to care. The AMA found that one in five physicians currently restricts the number of Medicare patients they see. The AMA study shows that nearly one-third of primary care physicians restrict the number of Medicare patients they take into their practice.

All any of the Members of the Senate need to do is, at home on the weekend, talk to someone in your community, someone who is on Medicare, someone who is trying to find a doctor, a doctor to care for them, and see how very difficult it is for someone on Medicare to find a doctor to care for them.

Well, later last year, the Association of American Medical Colleges related updated physician shortage estimates. The September 2010 study said that by 2015, doctor shortages will be actually 50 percent worse than originally projected. By 2020, there will be a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians and a shortage of 46,000 surgeons and medical specialists.

So I find it ironic that we have a health care law that is passed that actually doesn't put money into training doctors to treat you but puts money in to hire IRS agents to investigate you. Absolutely astonishing.

These studies clearly demonstrate that the President's health care law will only make it harder for Americans to see their doctor. In fact, Washington only expanded the ability for folks to get government- approved, government-mandated, government-subsidized coverage. They did not expand the ability for the American people to get actual medical care. There is a huge difference between medical coverage and medical care. When you take over $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare not to save Medicare but to start a brand new government program for someone else, well, that is a way to make the problem worse. When you force 16 million more people onto Medicaid, a program where half of the doctors in the country won't see those patients, that also makes the problem worse.

On the front page of yesterday's USA TODAY, Wednesday, July 6, the headline is ``Medicaid payments go under the knife.'' State cuts could add to shortage of doctors.

The second paragraph:

Some health care experts say the cuts, most of which went

into effect July 1, or will later this month, could add to a

shortage of physicians and other providers participating in

Medicaid.

The article goes on:

Under the 2010 health care law, more than 16 million

additional people will become eligible starting in 2014.

So already we have a situation where doctors are reluctant to take care of people on Medicaid. Yet the President's solution to the health care dilemma in this country is to put more people into a system that is already broken. We are giving individuals and families an insurance card but not really giving them access to the care that has been promised.

Adults are not the only ones waiting in lines to get into doctors offices as the lines get longer. In fact, children enrolled in Medicaid have a harder time accessing medical care than children who have private insurance. Yet that is the President's solution to the needs of this country.

On January 16 of this year, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study conducted in Cook County, IL. It is President Obama's hometown of Chicago. People were calling medical offices asking for appointments. They were asking for appointments for children with chronic conditions or acute conditions and telling the offices--these were kind of secret shoppers--the person had Medicaid or private insurance. What they found is 66 percent of the time when the researcher called for an appointment and they mentioned Medicaid, they were denied an appointment. But only 11 percent of the researchers calling for appointments who said they had private insurance--only 11 percent would not get an appointment. So there you have 66 percent denied if they had Medicaid and only 11 percent denied with private insurance. Those Medicaid patients who did get an appointment, well, they faced wait times twice as long as kids with private insurance--an average of about 6 weeks. As one caller was told when asked what kind of insurance the person had--when that person said Medicaid, the receptionist at the medical office said: Medicaid is not insurance. Yet that is what the President and the Democrats base their entire health care plan on--16 million more on Medicaid.

Here it is over a year after the law has been signed, and the President's health care law has made health care in America worse. Premiums are higher, and the lines at doctors offices are longer. It is more difficult to get a doctor to care for you. This is not what the President's health care law was supposed to do, and it is not what the President promised the American people last year. He promised that the health care law would make health care better for all Americans. Each week, we learn that the promises are coming up empty and health care in America under this health care law has been made worse.

That is why week after week I come to the Senate floor as we learn more things about the health care law that passed the Senate, passed the House, was signed by the President, and, in my opinion as a doctor who practiced medicine for 24 years, has actually been bad for patients, bad for providers

and nurses and doctors who take care of those patients, and bad for the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe for up to 10 minutes.

We heard the Senator from Georgia talk about the upcoming predictable crisis, and our Nation faces an Olympic crisis right now, and it is a predictable crisis.

Back in 2006, then-Senator Obama called raising the debt ceiling ``a sign of leadership failure.'' So why 5 years later is it now-President Obama who is asking us to raise the debt ceiling, and why is he doing it with no plan on how to pay back the new debt we continue to accumulate?

In his press conference last week, the President called on this party to ``go ahead and make the tough choices.'' When it comes to cutting spending, his allies in Congress refuse to make any choices. The President has attacked this body for not getting a deal done on time. Yet he declined to meet with Republicans about these very issues and about our ideas. According to the White House Press Secretary--the Press Secretary said this was ``not a conversation worthing having.'' Well, he has finally agreed to meet tomorrow with leaders from both parties.

The White House and Congress have a choice: Do we want America to be broke or do we want America to be balanced? Facts are stubborn things, and the numbers do not lie. Our debt is swallowing our economy whole. Every day Washington borrows $4.1 billion more--borrowed over $4.1 billion yesterday, $4.1 billion today, and it will borrow $4.1 billion again tomorrow. That is over $2 million a minute, every minute. In a single day, Washington borrows enough to buy tens of thousands of new homes. In a single hour, Washington borrows enough to buy 2 million barrels of oil. In a single minute, Washington borrows enough to send 53 students a year to the most expensive colleges in America. In a single second, Washington borrows enough to buy two new Ford Mustang cars. Washington did all of that yesterday, and it will do it all today, and it will do it all tomorrow.

Well, of every dollar Washington spends, 41 cents of it is borrowed. Much of it is borrowed from China. Every American child born today, born tomorrow, and born the next day is born with a debt of over $45,000. Next year, of every dollar Washington spends, 68 cents will go for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt alone.

If those numbers don't sound scary yet, they will. Interest on our debt cost $196 billion last year. It costs nearly $23 million an hour. It costs over $370,000 a minute, every minute. It costs $6,000 a second, every second, interest alone on our debt. In the time it takes to give this speech, as well as my colleague's previous speech and the speech coming up after that, in those 10 minutes, Washington will have spent millions of dollars on interest payments alone.

The President has railed against tax breaks for private jets. He did it in a press conference last week. He mentioned it six times. What he didn't tell you is that every $100 of the huge deficit of this year alone--of every $100, only two cents of that $100 would be dealt with with the tax he proposes and holds out as the No. 1 thing. What about the other $99.98? What the President won't tell you is that the interest on our debt costs enough to buy over 100 private jets every day--for the interest we pay on the debt alone. His party wants to end tax breaks for yachts. Yet the interest on our debt would buy over 50 luxury yachts every hour. Most Americans are feeling severe pain at the pump. Yet Washington could buy nearly 2,000 gallons of gas at current prices every second with the money we spend on interest on our debt.

If we, as a nation, continue down this path, Washington will spend all of what it takes in on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on this colossal debt. Everything else, from defense to education, will be paid for on a budget of borrowed money. So where is the money going to come from? How will we ever pay it back? A lot of it will come from other countries, countries that do not always have America's best interest at heart.

Debt isn't just a disaster for the distant future; our debt is so unsustainable and irresponsible that even our military leaders have condemned it. ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt. The debt is the threat. We do not and we should not take the biggest threat to our national security lightly.

The amount of debt we owe right now today is so high that it is hurting our employment at home. Experts continue to tell us that our debt is costing us millions of jobs. Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard reports that every ``stimulus job'' costs over $\1/4\ million. In other words, the White House could have just cut a check of $100,000 for every American who got a job through the stimulus, and taxpayers still would have come out ahead by $427 billion. Spending like this cannot create jobs because by nature it makes it harder for the private sector to grow, and no growth means no jobs. Because of this, it is harder for American families to

buy gas, groceries, cars, and homes, to pay tuition for their kids to go to college, and it is harder to create jobs for those kids who will be graduating this year and next year and every year until we get this spending under control.

Everyone seems to claim they understand that the situation is irresponsible and unsustainable. Two years ago, back in February of 2009, the President called experts to the White House. He called them in for what he called a fiscal responsibility summit. In his opening remarks, here is what the President had to say:

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past

few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the

consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or

the next generation.

Well, I agreed with the President. He was right. So my question to the President is, What have you done about it?

One thing he has done is to call together a debt commission. Late last year, the debt commission released their report on America's fiscal situation, and the findings were sobering. According to the report, they said the problem was real; the solution will be painful; there is no easy way out; everything must be on the table. You know what else they said. They said Washington must lead.

Washington has not led. Instead, the administration has offered nothing but empty promises. As the White House makes promise after promise and speech after speech with no action to back it up, it is clearer than ever that in Washington spoken promises have become broken promises.

This administration's allies in Congress have no plan other than raising taxes. While they claim to have already accepted the idea of cutting trillions of dollars from the budget, I have yet to hear the Democratic leadership endorse any spending cuts. Where is their plan to cut wasteful Washington spending? So far, they have only talked about tax increases that will kill jobs and hurt our economy. Raising taxes will only make matters worse.

The fundamental difference in this fight is more than just practical, it is also philosophical. We can argue over whether raising taxes on this or on that industry will lower the debt or just raise the costs for the American people.

Let me make this very simple. I am not interested in raising taxes to expand and sustain the size and scope of our Federal Government. I want less government, less costly government, and that means I am not interested in ferreting out new ways to tax people or businesses. I am looking for ways to cut spending to shrink the size of government. I want to dramatically reshape government, spend less, do less, and put power back into the private sector. That is how you raise revenue--you slash government, you put people back to work. Washington's persistent push to put our fiscal crisis off until tomorrow is unacceptable and must end now.

So I come to the floor and say, as someone from Wyoming, where we live within our means, where we balance our budget every year, it is time for this body, this Congress, and this President to sign into law a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is an amendment which would force Washington to live within its means.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come here today to compliment the minority leader, Senator McConnell, for his resolution in our effort to put a balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution of the United States.

I come here today to tell you a little story about a friend of mine from Douglas, WY. I was in Douglas on Memorial Day. Every year on Memorial Day in Douglas, they have sunrise ceremony services in the cemetery where they raise the flag, go through the names of all the veterans from Converse County who have passed in the last year, put the flag back at halfstaff, 21-gun salute, and a time for people to come together and think about this great Nation and honor those who have given their lives.

After the ceremony this year, people were leaving the ceremony. My friend Bernie Seebaum stopped me and said: You know, Senator--we have known each other a long time. He is on Medicare now, Social Security, has lived a long life, contributed to the community. He said: I don't care if you do a number of things--if you raise taxes, cut Medicare, take away Social Security--as long as you use it to pay off this debt, this $14 trillion debt.

I said: Bernie, the problem is, if Congress ever does something like that, they are going to get the money and they are just going to spend it.

The first thing we need to do is amend the Constitution so that we actually balance the budget. Then you can start talking about ways to pay off this incredible debt we have.

Here in Wyoming, we live within our means, balance the budget every year. It has paid huge dividends for our State.

You know, you think about the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers produced the greatest governing document, in my opinion, ever conceived. It was written at a time when our country's future was in serious doubt, when our country faced countless threats from abroad, threats that were becoming increasingly difficult to confront, and when the Federal Government lacked both the structure and the foundation to do anything about it. But there we had the Constitution, written in part as a response to those challenges of the day, and it has endured till this day. So amending the Constitution is not something to be undertaken lightly. The Constitution is the highest law of this great land. It has been amended, but infrequently and almost always at a time of crisis. Now, I support a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution because now is just such a time.

When the Constitution was written, they had to decide what the future would bear, so when it was written, as that time came, we now have to decide what sort of future we want for our country. Do we want a future where our children and grandchildren are overburdened by debt, where the U.S. dollar is backed by nothing more than worthless promises, or do we want a future where the only thing we can afford to spend money on--what we are facing right now--is entitlements and interest on our debt. Do we want a future where our country goes broke and a future where Washington lacks the political will to do anything about it or do we want a future with less spending, lower taxes, and more accountability?

Facts are stubborn, and the numbers do not lie. This month, the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that the outlook of America's debt is growing grimmer. The Hill newspaper put it best when it said that the new CBO report numbers are ``much worse than last year's outlook.'' To anyone who does the math, this is not a surprise. Every day, Washington borrows $4.1 billion more--borrowed over $4 billion yesterday, $4 billion today, and we will do it again tomorrow. That is over $2 million a minute, every minute. Washington did that yesterday, it is doing it today, and it will do it tomorrow. Of every dollar Washington spends, 41 cents of it is borrowed. Much of it is borrowed from China. Every American child born today and tomorrow and the next day is born with an incredible debt of over $45,000. Next year, of every dollar Washington spends, 68 cents will go for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt.

If we as a nation continue down this path, Washington will spend all of what it takes in on these items alone. Everything else, from defense to education, will be paid for on a budget of borrowed money. So you may ask, where is the money going to come from, and how will we ever pay it back? Well, a lot of it is going to come from other countries, countries that do not always have our interests, America's best interests, at heart.

John Kennedy stood outside this building in 1961, 50 years ago. He said:

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can

do for your country.

Well, a few years from now, that may change. It may change to: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country must do for China.

So consider this. When John Kennedy was President, America's total debt was just over $300 billion, and we only owed 4 percent of our debt to foreign countries. Today, our total debt is over $14 trillion. And debt isn't just a disaster for the distant future; our current debt is irresponsible and it is unsustainable. Even our military leaders have condemned it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said, ``The biggest threat to our national security is our debt.'' The debt is the threat. We do not and we should not take the biggest threat to our national security lightly.

The amount of debt we owe right now, today, is so high that it is hurting our employment at home. Experts tell us that our current debt is costing us 1 million jobs in America. Spending like this makes it harder for the private sector to create new jobs. Because of this, it is harder for American families to buy gas, to buy groceries, to buy cars, homes, to pay tuition for the kids to go to college. And it is harder to create jobs for those kids who will be graduating this year and next year and every year until we get the spending under control. Everyone in this body claims to understand that the situation is irresponsible and is unsustainable.

Back in February 2009, the President called experts to the White House for what he called a fiscal responsibility summit. In his opening remarks, this is what the President had to say:

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past

few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the

consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or

the next generation.

Well, I agreed with the President. He was right. So my question to the President is, What have you done about it? Well, one thing he has done is he has called together a debt commission. Late last year, the debt commission released their report on America's fiscal situation, and the findings were sobering. According to the report, they said: The problem is real. The solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. Everything must be on the table. Do you know what else they said? They also said: Washington must lead.

Washington has not led. Instead, this administration has offered nothing but empty promises. As the White House makes promise after promise and speech after speech with no action--no action to back it up--it is clearer than ever that spoken promises have become broken promises.

This persistent push to put our fiscal crisis off until tomorrow is unacceptable and must end now. The first step toward doing that should be to pass an amendment to our Constitution requiring Washington to balance its budget. A balanced budget amendment would require Washington to spend no more money than it takes in each and every year. Such an amendment would force Washington to live within its means. We cannot afford to continue to mortgage our children's future to pay for Washington's fiscal failures. Such an amendment would transform the kind of irresponsible spending that goes on today in this very body into an impeachable violation of every legislator's constitutional oath of office.

The American people have overwhelmingly spoken on the wisdom of this approach. A recent poll conducted by Sachs/Mason Dixon showed that 65 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, and 45 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who did so. Of those, 68 percent of them were Independents, but there is support for this among Republicans, among Independents, and among Democrats. When the American people call for Washington to lead in numbers this big, it is time for Washington to listen. Every single member of my party on this side of the aisle agrees. That is why all 47 Republican Members of this body have cosponsored the balanced budget amendment. The American people are behind us, and they want us to act.

Meanwhile, the administration and its allies on the other side of the aisle have offered nothing but more empty rhetoric, more of the same tax-and-spend policies that made this economic situation worse. You take a look at where we are and where we have been, they have made it worse.

I am reminded of a quote from Ronald Reagan. He said:

If the big spenders get their way, they'll charge

everything to your taxpayers' express card and believe me,

they will never leave home without it.

The big spenders can get away with charging everything to the American people's taxpayer express card because no one--no one is forcing them to look at the bills. Now those bills are coming due, and this administration and its liberal allies want a new taxpayer express card and a blank check. They want a blank check to spend as they desire, and they are not going to get it from me, not without specific reforms that will introduce accountability into this broken Washington process.

A balanced budget amendment will not solve every problem, but it is a critical step in the right direction. It would ensure that Washington is constitutionally obligated to avoid the reckless overspending of the past.

Our debt crisis did not surface overnight. It certainly will not be solved without a great deal of additional work.

Before any of that work can be done, Washington has to learn to live within its means the way families all across this great country do. It is time we show the American people they can trust their government with their money again. It is time we lead today instead of deferring leadership until tomorrow. It is time we show the same courage our Founding Fathers did when this country was on the verge of financial collapse. It is time for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Then I can go back to my friend Bernie and his wife Sally, in Douglas, WY, and say: Bernie, finally, in Washington, they got it right. They realize, as we do in Wyoming, we have to live within our means. We have to balance our budget every year and then start working on paying off this incredible debt.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I come to the floor, as I have each week since the health care law was signed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law because it does seem that each week there is more information that comes out about this health care law that is bothersome to the people of this great country. The more they learn about it, the more concerned they are. And, as Nancy Pelosi said last year: First, you must pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Well, the people of this country continue to learn what is in this health care law, and they continue to be opposed to it.

Last Friday, the administration released another round of waivers from the President's health care law. They issued waivers to another 117,000 people, a total of 62 new waivers, which brings the total waivers to well over 1,400 covering 3.2 million individuals. What does that mean if they have a waiver? That means they don't have to live under the specifics of the law the President signed.

Over 49 percent of these waivers have gone to union employees, to people who get their insurance through union plans. These are many of the people who actually lobbied to support the health care law. So isn't it interesting that these are the same people who have come out and, after they have read it and found out what is in it, have said: We don't want this to apply to us. And it is interesting because that many union members have gotten these waivers when the number of people in this country who work as members of the union is actually a much smaller percentage.

But then let's not forget how the President said in a radio interview while the 2010 elections were going on that he would remember and would reward our friends, he said, and punish our enemies. Well, by issuing these waivers each month, this administration has reminded the American people how flawed the President's health care law is. Waivers have turned into a nightmare for this administration.

In May, I explained that the waiver recipients got a waiver for 1 year, and they would have to then apply again for a waiver year after year, all the way through 2014 when ObamaCare fully kicks in. We just learned last Friday that the administration is switching course. In fact, the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services just announced that employers and unions, even those with the 1-year waivers, must now apply again by September of this year for a long-term waiver to take them all the way to 2014. It seems to me this new scheme is designed so the administration can dodge issuing more waivers leading up to the 2012 Presidential election so the American people aren't reminded month after month of the significant flaws of the health care law. It is clear that continuing to issue waivers in 2012 was going to be an embarrassment for the President.

It is also clear that this new change in policy means that even the administration admits that the new health care law does not work. The President promised--promised all of us in Congress--that if we like the health insurance plan we have we can keep it. But what he meant was that to keep the coverage that we have today we will need a waiver from Washington mandates. We will need to get permission from the Obama administration to keep the insurance we like.

Companies and businesses across the country must apply before September if they want to avoid the health care law's crushing costs. In my opinion, I think we are going to see a tidal wave of waivers before this deadline in September. In fact, I predict that 5 million people will eventually have to get waivers from this top-down government mandate. There is going to be increased demand for waivers as more and more people see that they will lose what they have today. As business owners look into this and see how the health care law will cause their cost of providing insurance to go up over the next 2 years, they are going to be lining up for waivers over the next few months. Once again, we are witnessing the horrible economic impacts of this new law.

I also want to talk for a minute about what happens after this September deadline, after the door closes on waivers. Let's take a look at the economy--9.1 percent unemployment and job creators sitting on the sidelines due to the significant expenses of trying to open a business. Hard-working Americans who want to start a new business are going to be forced to choose between two less desirable choices. No. 1, they can offer high-cost, government-approved health insurance, making it much more expensive for them to try to open a new business and hire workers or, No. 2, they will not offer any health coverage because they cannot afford the health care law's out-of-touch and expensive insurance mandates.

With the skyrocketing debt we are facing in this country and 9.1 percent unemployment, this administration's signature piece of legislation, the President's health care law, discourages America's best and brightest from starting new businesses and providing for their employees. That is what the

President's health care law does. It stifles innovation, strangles the free market, and saddles the American people with more debt.

Once again, this is another example of how the President's health care policies are making things worse. His policies are making the economy in America worse. His policies are making the standard of living in America worse. His policies are making health care in America worse. And his policies are making America's debt worse.

Just this week we learned of another enormously expensive error in the law. This has to be what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said: First, you have to pass the bill before you find out what's in it. It turns out now the President's health care law will let several million middle-class people get insurance meant for people with low income. It would allow 3 million, by the estimates--3 million members of the middle class to receive Medicaid. The Associated Press reported that this would be like letting middle-class families get food stamps. The Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, said the situation keeps him up at night.

This health care law is not fixable. This health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for the taxpayers of this country. This health care law needs to be repealed and replaced. That is why I come to the Senate floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the President's health care law.

I yield the floor.