Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor today as a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for about 25 years. During that time I was medical director of something called Wyoming Health Fairs where we provide employees low-cost blood screening for early detection and early treatment of medical problems. We know one of the things that was attempted to be solved with the discussion on health care was to have people involved in their own health care decisions and early detection, as well as prevention of disease.

I attended a health fair last weekend in Worland, Washakie County, WY, where I had a chance to meet with a number of folks, including people from small businesses. First, I wish to congratulate this body, and specifically Senator Johanns from Nebraska, for the repeal of the 1099 form regulations which significantly burden small businesses all around the country.

I also come to the floor as someone who has practiced medicine and has been watching the health care law closely. It is one that I believe is bad for patients, bad for providers and nurses and doctors who take care of the patients, and bad for the American taxpayers because I think this is going to add significantly to our growing debt problem. These are things that need to be addressed.

One part of the health care law, the 2,700-page law that was passed, dealt with something called accountable care organizations. Those are intended to help people coordinate care and have that coordinated care increase people's health by early detection of problems and to help minimize problems but also attempt to save money.

The six pages of the health care law that dealt with accountable care organizations has resulted in the release of regulations on March 31, 429 pages of regulations which have a significant impact on restructuring the way medicine is practiced.

As I look at this in terms of our growing debt, my concern is that the administration is bragging that the regulations save Medicare money, about $960 million total, best care scenario, over a 3-year period. So savings of less than $1 billion, a restructuring of the way medicine is being practiced, a savings of less than $1 billion, at a time when Medicare will be spending over those 3 years over $1.5 trillion, a savings of less than $1 billion on an expenditure of over $1.5 trillion.

The other aspect that was so interesting in watching this administration is they have come out with a statement about regulations.

The small businesspeople I talked to in Worland last weekend at the health fair told me that increased government regulations add to the cost of doing business and make it harder for them to hire more people. Specifically, it is related to increased costs.

It was interesting to see the administration saying that an increase in labor demand due to regulations may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment. The administration apparently believes if we increase the rules and regulations on businesses, it will make it better for them, when they will tell us universally that it will make it worse.

Additionally, last Friday night the Department of Health and Human Services released their new next round of ObamaCare waivers. We have talked about those in the past on this floor as part of a doctor's second opinion. If this health care law is so good, why do millions and millions of Americans say: We can't live under this, and the

administration agrees and grants them waivers?

So this past weekend, Secretary Sebelius added another 128 waivers covering another 300,000 Americans to say: No, for the next year, you get a 1-year waiver, you do not have to live under the mandates of ObamaCare.

So now we are at a point where the total number of waivers granted has been over 1,000, covering 2,930,000 people. So, wow, what is the breakdown of those people? Who are they? How can they get those waivers?

Well, it is interesting. In this country, where union workers are just a small percentage of the total workforce, 49 percent--almost half--of all of the waivers have been granted to people who get their insurance through the unions.

I just looked at this list that came out, and it is interesting because one of the waivers that had been granted for 13,000 employees, enrollees, is for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. So let's see what we can find out about them. If we go to their Web site and go to the area that deals with health care, what it says is this:

Thanks to your hard work--

This is to people in the union--

Thanks to your hard work over the last year, Congress

passed a health care reform bill that was signed into law by

President Obama. This landmark reform is a hard-fought

victory for [the United Food and Commercial Workers Union]. .

. .

Well, wait a second, these are the same people who went in and asked for and got a waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services--a waiver so they do not have to live under it.

Now, it is interesting, if you go to this Web site, you can click to other things, and what you can find is that you can actually watch a video on the Web site of the people who just got a waiver--a video of the members of this union ``rally and talk about health care reform.'' Oh, the health care they are rallying for, but they do not want it to apply to them. The Secretary of Health and Human Services says: That is fine, you can have a waiver. Oh, you can actually ``see the pictures of [union] members taking action on health care reform.'' But it is not the action of applying for the waiver--a waiver they have just been granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Now it says:

Call your members of Congress to thank them for passing

real reform.

Oh, you are supposed to thank the Members of this body for passing something, but then they applied for a waiver that has been granted for over 13,000 members who get insurance through this program?

They say you can also check an area to read the background information on this union's ``advocacy of health care reform''-- advocacy for a program they wanted to force down the throats of the American people but yet do not want to live under themselves.

This health care law is bad for this country, it is bad for our patients, it is bad for our health care providers, and it is bad for taxpayers. The union members who absolutely lobbied for it are now saying--now that they have read the bill, now that they know what is in the law, they are saying they do not want it to apply to them, so much so that one of the unions that has gotten a waiver, on their recent Web site, said:

. . . we are . . . challenged by how to implement the law

under prevailing circumstances.

Well, the prevailing circumstances are the law they wanted passed.

It says:

The Trustees of the Fund have no ability to secure

additional contributions needed to cover the increased costs

of providing these required--

Required by the people on the other side of the aisle who voted for this--

additional benefits.

It says:

The Trustees are requesting a waiver from HHS to preserve

the annual benefit limitation now in place for the part-time

plan of benefits to minimize the cost impact of transitioning

to the requirements of the reform act. . . .

Well, what it basically says is that these folks who want the waiver are saying what I have been saying on this floor since the beginning of the debate: that this is going to be bad for taxpayers, it is going to drive up the cost of care, it is going to drive up the cost of insurance, in spite of the President's promise that if we pass this, families will see premiums drop by $2,100, in spite of the President's promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. What we are seeing, for the people who proudly lobbied for this, is that they do not want it to apply to them. They realize now it is going to cause their plans to have significant problems.

I believe every American ought to be able to have a waiver, every American ought to not have to live under this health care law. To me, it is unaffordable, it is unmanageable, and I believe it is unconstitutional. That is why I come to the floor, as I have every week, with a doctor's second opinion that we must repeal and replace this health care law.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today the President is heading to Philadelphia to talk about energy. Well, the President talks a good game but, unlike energy, talk is cheap.

The President plans to host a townhall meeting about his new energy policy. I think it is time the rhetoric face the reality of what the country is seeing, experiencing, and dealing with. If the President truly wants to get a handle on energy costs, he needs to start by immediately stopping his Environmental Protection Agency from attempting to enact backdoor cap-and-trade regulation.

That is exactly what the EPA is doing. The only effect that can have is to increase energy costs on American families. The President himself admitted as much in 2008. At that time, in an interview with a San Francisco newspaper, he said: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

Is the President serious about decreasing U.S. dependency on foreign oil? If so, he should then rescind his veto threat against today's congressional legislation regarding the policies of the EPA.

That is why I am here in support of the McConnell amendment. The McConnell amendment keeps energy prices low. It prevents the EPA from blocking the development of domestic energy. It restores the Clean Air Act to its original congressional intent. I support the McConnell commonsense amendment.

Most likely, today we will hear more of the same from the President in his speech and townhall meeting in Philadelphia, and more of the same is the last thing the American people need right now. American families are facing increasing gas prices. Our national security is being jeopardized by dependence on foreign sources of energy. Unrest in the Middle East and North Africa is driving high prices even higher.

The Department of Energy has made an estimate that families all across this country will spend $700 more on gasoline this year than they did last year. Meanwhile, the President will most likely deliver another speech with great goals but limited action.

With gasoline at over $3.50 a gallon, the President fails to appreciate the effect his administration's policies have on families with bills, with kids, and with mortgages to pay.

In 2008, President Obama, then a candidate for President, said that the problem wasn't that gas prices were too high but that they had risen too fast. In his words, he said he ``would have preferred a more gradual adjustment.'' This may explain why the President spent his first 2 years in the White House undermining and abandoning an all-of- the-above approach to energy. It is no wonder that he is now trying to cast blame on those who are offering a responsible alternative.

The President says he wants to cut our imports of foreign oil by a third by 2025. Well, to me, he doesn't appear to have the right vision or political will to get there. The United States has the most combined energy resources on Earth, but when faced with new sources of U.S. energy, the administration's automatic response has been to regulate, delay, or to shut down.

The President's ``say one thing, do another'' policy is making the pain at the pump even worse. His approach is long on making promises, short on taking responsibility. He talks of his concern for the people affected by the gulf oilspill. Yet his drilling shutdown in the Gulf of Mexico killed their jobs and strangles energy production even today. U.S. offshore oil production is expected to drop 15 percent this year thanks to the policies of this administration.

The President's claim that blaming his administration for ``shutting down oil production''--he says it doesn't track with reality. But I will tell you that the administration's stalling on gulf oil and gas drilling permits is so antibusiness that even former President Bill Clinton called it ``ridiculous.'' Even as the President says he wants to cut oil imports, he told an audience in Brazil a week or two ago that he wants the United States to become ``one of Brazil's best customers'' for oil. He said he would expedite new drilling permits. He claims oil companies are ``sitting on supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped.'' But the biggest thing standing in the way is redtape from his own Interior Department and EPA. While ``use it or lose it'' makes for a nice sound bite, it ignores the reality that the Obama administration's own policies are the most significant roadblock we have to drilling and exploring for American energy.

The President also claims to support alternative fuels. Yet he didn't once mention converting coal into fuel or tapping oil shale. Oil shale production could produce an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That is three times the amount of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

The way we can address our economic and national security needs is by producing more American energy. We can't afford to pick and choose our energy at a time of uncertainty. We do need it all. This means allowing more U.S. exploration and lifting the burdensome regulations that make it harder for Americans to produce more energy.

Renewable energy is part of it, it is important, but there is no way green energy and green jobs can replace the red, white, and blue energy and jobs that have continued to power our country for over a century. Until the administration acknowledges this, the administration's policies will continue to make the pain at the pump even worse. That is why I urge the Members of this body to adopt the McConnell amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act.

For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface leases of tribal trust lands.

The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use activities on tribal lands.

The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of their lands.

In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on the measure.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring this important legislation.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act.

For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface leases of tribal trust lands.

The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use activities on tribal lands.

The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of their lands.

In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on the measure.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring this important legislation.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about jobs, the economy, and our Nation's energy.

In a few minutes the President will be speaking at Georgetown University about energy. I rise today to talk about the President's Environmental Protection Agency and his efforts to regulate our global climate by taxing, by using a backdoor method called cap and tax, a proposal that we will be debating here in the Senate and are debating today.

Folks back home recall the debate about cap and tax. It happened over the last few years. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency is trying do it through a backdoor method. Attempts to pass this massive energy tax on to the hard-working families all across the country have failed. It failed in Congress, and it failed because the American public has said we do not want new energy taxes.

Americans don't want to pay more for gasoline at the pump. Yet they are experiencing it every day. I saw it this past weekend in Wyoming. Week after week the price at the pump goes up. American families don't want to pay more for electricity to heat their homes and run their small businesses. Yet the President's Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to bypass this Congress and enact their own cap-and-tax policy through regulation.

Cap and tax is unacceptable to the American people. It was unacceptable 3 years ago, it was unacceptable 2 years ago, it was unacceptable last year, and it is still unacceptable today.

The EPA may think they know better than the American people. That is why this EPA must be stopped. There are different ways to stop the EPA's ongoing regulations. We have three proposals before us today, but only one is a solution. Of the other amendments, one is a surrender and another is a distraction. The McConnell-Inhofe amendment, the one I support, is an amendment that will block the EPA's attempt to enact the same cap-and-tax bill that has been defeated time and time again on Capitol Hill. That is the solution I will talk about shortly.

However, I wish to talk about the amendments I have concern with. One is the Baucus amendment. I do not support the Baucus amendment. To me, it is an attempt to surrender in the face of the EPA's dramatic regulatory overreach. It is the so-called ``agriculture exemption.''

When I talk to people in agriculture--the so-called agricultural exemption doesn't shield agricultural producers from increased fuel, increased energy, and increased fertilizer costs.

The factories, refineries, and powerplants that are the glue that holds the farming industry together and allows it to function will be hit with significant energy taxes under the Baucus amendment.

The aftershock will be felt by American small businesses and farmers across the West and the Midwest.

Farmers and small businesses will face higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs, higher diesel costs, and higher fertilizer costs.

Everything from driving a tractor to shipping your produce to market will skyrocket.

Farms will close, and the cost of produce at the local grocery store will go up for all Americans.

We are not just seeing pain at the pump; people are paying more for gas, but they are also paying more for groceries these days. This will make that worse.

If you have any doubt about the impact the Baucus amendment will have on farms, talk to the American Farm Bureau because they oppose this amendment.

Another amendment dealing with the EPA is the Rockefeller amendment. It calls for a partial delay of EPA regulations for 2 years. This is not a delay, it is a distraction. The question is, does it truly delay the regulation of greenhouse gases? Not really. A couple are delayed-- two of six--but four greenhouse gases are not. If that sounds like only a partial delay, you are correct, it is only partial.

Does the Rockefeller amendment put in safeguards to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency abides by the 2-year partial delay? No, it doesn't. The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to stop the EPA from stalling construction permits during the 2 years.

The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from retroactively requiring costly mandates on small businesses, powerplants, and manufacturing facilities. It also does not prevent climate change nuisance suits, which are filed in court by groups opposed to fossil fuel development.

It seems to me the Rockefeller amendment only delays job growth, while giving a green light to EPA to proceed with regulations that will be costly to American families and to our American economy.

For those of us looking to protect jobs across the country and restore Congress's authority to determine our own energy future, this type of amendment can only be described as a partial delay. It is a distraction.

We don't need a surrender or a distraction; what we need is a solution.

The solution is the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. This amendment restores the Clean Air Act to its true meaning and congressional intent. Let me get back to that. This amendment restores the Clean Air Act to its true meaning and congressional intent.

The McConnell-Inhofe amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and tax. They are trying to do it in a backdoor route with cap and tax. But the McConnell amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and tax by blocking EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, by repealing the EPA's endangerment finding that says carbon dioxide is a threat to public health, by repealing the tailoring rule that says EPA can arbitrarily pick and choose which businesses they want to target, and also by applying it immediately to all greenhouse gases.

This is the amendment we must pass to rein in EPA and to protect jobs. This is the amendment that has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the American Farm Bureau, and Americans for Prosperity. The list of supporters of this amendment is extensive.

We need to get serious about America's energy future. Congress needs the time to get this policy right. We need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it without raising energy prices or hurting American families and jobs.

The McConnell-Inhofe amendment is the right solution.

I yield the floor and 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 consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Texas.

I come to the floor as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century as an orthopaedic surgeon, taking care of families across the State, and to present a physician's second opinion on what has happened with the health care law people are dealing with. As Nancy Pelosi said 1 year ago: ``First we have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it.''

The American people are finding out what is in it and, frankly, they are not happy with it. They don't like it, they don't want to live with it, and they don't want to live under it.

One year ago, when we started this discussion, what we heard and what I believed as a physician was that what people are looking for is the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a cost they can afford.

This 2,700-page bill that is costing trillions of dollars doesn't deliver that at all. To me, it is a bill that makes it harder to create jobs. It increases the cost of care, eliminates choice, raises taxes, is locking 16 million Americans into a broken Medicaid system, and is taking $500 billion from our seniors--not to help take care of Medicare and solve that problem but to start a whole new government entitlement program.

I was visiting with one of my colleagues, Dr. Kris Keggi, an orthopedic surgeon whom I trained under in my residency program. Just the impact on

seniors alone who need hip and knee replacements--we know when we take that kind of money away from Medicare, it doesn't make it easier for seniors to get the care they need.

Two courts have ruled--one in Virginia and one in Florida--that this health care law and the mandate that everybody in the country must buy or obtain government-approved health insurance is unconstitutional. The States are at an impasse in knowing what to do. How do they react? What will the Supreme Court decide? What kind of resources must the States commit?

That is why I am delighted to be joined on the floor by Senator Hutchison from Texas. I think she has the right answer. She has introduced, as an amendment to the bill we are discussing on the floor, the Save our States Act. It is an amendment to suspend implementing these health care reform measures until the lawsuits have been settled and we actually get a clear understanding.

I believe this law is unconstitutional. I ask my colleague--and I note there are quite a few Senators who have cosponsored this legislation--if she would perhaps share, as part of a second opinion, her thoughts on what the States have to live under now and what rights and opportunities the States should have.

Mr. President, to follow up on that, I am so pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Save our States Act.

States are very concerned. As I heard my colleague from Texas say, 44 States are in the red right now. When we hear the complaints from Governors of both parties--they are all having to live under this law-- they have great concerns. Some States, as my colleague notes, have actually applied for waivers so they don't have to live under the constraints of the law. The State of Maine has been given a waiver, 2\1/2\ million Americans have been given waivers by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Many of those are union workers who actually supported the law. When they found out what the law was going to cost-- as in the example the Senator has given from Corpus Christi--they said: We can't live under this.

To be forced to put out this expense and pay for it at a time of huge financial challenges for our States, it seems that the Save our States Act is a rational, logical, commonsense way to deal with this.

I will be home in Wyoming this weekend, very likely at a health fair, visiting with people from the communities. Health care fairs are ways to get low-cost health screenings. We know early prevention and early detection of problems are ways to keep down the cost of health care. Those are measures that work. We need to repeal and replace this health care law with things that are commonsense solutions that work. Of course, we can make it legal to allow people to buy insurance across State lines, give people individual incentives to stay healthy, allow people who buy individual health insurance to get the same tax breaks as big companies, and deal with the lawsuit abuse doctors will tell us impacts the way they practice and raises the cost of care.

There are so many things we need to do. That is why I come to the floor again with a doctor's second opinion on the health care law, saying it is time

to repeal and replace this health care law and replace it with something that works for the American people. This law we have passed and is now on the books is one I believe is unconstitutional and one that the Save our States Act will help our States deal with. This is a way that I think will help the health care of Americans who are struggling at this time to deal with the onerous requirements they see coming at them under the President's new health care law.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Wyden has been a strong voice advocating for rural specific health care policies here in the United States Senate. I am proud to join him as we fight to ensure Medicare patients living in rural and frontier states have access to and choice of mental health professionals.

The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would permit Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Professional Counselors to bill Medicare directly for services. These providers would receive 75 percent of the psychiatrist and psychologist rate for the same services. I want my colleagues to know that this legislation does not expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare patients living in isolated, frontier States like Wyoming more mental health provider choices.

Today, approximately 75 percent of the over 3,000 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker.

Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area. Wyoming has approximately 215 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 418 clinical social workers for a total of 670 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would almost double the number of mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State--with the addition of 659 licensed professional counselors and 83 marriage and family therapists currently licensed to practice.

Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel long distances to see mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. To make matters worse, rural and frontier communities have extreme difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a Licensed Professional Counselor or a Marriage and Family Therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--only compounds the situation because psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists are the only providers able to bill Medicare for mental health services.

It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. They play a critical role in the Nation's mental health care delivery system. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of a masters level social worker, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program.

I believe this bill is critically important to the health and well- being of our nation's seniors, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Wyden has been a strong voice advocating for rural specific health care policies here in the United States Senate. I am proud to join him as we fight to ensure Medicare patients living in rural and frontier states have access to and choice of mental health professionals.

The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would permit Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Professional Counselors to bill Medicare directly for services. These providers would receive 75 percent of the psychiatrist and psychologist rate for the same services. I want my colleagues to know that this legislation does not expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare patients living in isolated, frontier States like Wyoming more mental health provider choices.

Today, approximately 75 percent of the over 3,000 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker.

Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area. Wyoming has approximately 215 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 418 clinical social workers for a total of 670 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would almost double the number of mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State--with the addition of 659 licensed professional counselors and 83 marriage and family therapists currently licensed to practice.

Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel long distances to see mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. To make matters worse, rural and frontier communities have extreme difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a Licensed Professional Counselor or a Marriage and Family Therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--only compounds the situation because psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists are the only providers able to bill Medicare for mental health services.

It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. They play a critical role in the Nation's mental health care delivery system. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of a masters level social worker, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program.

I believe this bill is critically important to the health and well- being of our nation's seniors, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor.

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

Madam President, we are just about 1 year to the day from the day the President signed into law the health care law that is going to have an impact on all the people of this country. Here we are, 1 year later and we know a lot more about this law and people all around the country know a lot more about this law.

I spent part of the weekend visiting folks in Buffalo, WY, attending the Buffalo health fair. A health fair is a place in the community where people get together and get their blood tested ahead of time. It is very inexpensive. It is based on prevention and early detection-- issues this health care law was supposed to address but has failed miserably at. At the health fair, I talked to people who were getting their blood results back, checking their cholesterol, checking their blood sugars to see about diabetes, checking their thyroid levels, and as these people were getting their blood tested--and many people, probably half the population of Buffalo, turned out to have their blood tested--they started asking me questions about the health care law, the kind of questions any American would be concerned about: Am I going to lose my freedoms? Am I still going to be able to keep my doctor? Will it truly get the cost of care down?

Regrettably, this health care law, now 1 year since it has been signed, turns out to actually be bad for patients, bad for providers-- the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers, the people left footing the bill because we know a lot more now, 1 year after the law was passed, than we did when it was passed.

People remember this as the law that was crammed through the Senate in the dead of night, written behind closed doors, and all the unseemly bargains that were cut to convince Senators to vote for it, getting by on the barest number of votes. There were things such as the cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase--the sort of things that offended people all across this country. So people are upset with this health care law, No. 1, in the way it was passed: In spite of the fact the President promised it would be seen on C-SPAN, all the discussions were held behind closed doors and despite the fact that many Americans never had a chance to read this 2,700-page law.

When the President made his initial speech about what he was aiming to accomplish in health care reform, I said that would be great. I am an orthopedic surgeon, practiced medicine for 25 years, and I think we need to do the sorts of things the President initially addressed. Unfortunately, the health care law went in the opposite direction. When people worked their way through the 2,700-page bill, they found that instead of lowering the cost of care, the cost of their care was going to go up; instead of allowing people to keep the doctor they wanted, they were going to, unfortunately, have to change that situation. That is why I have been coming to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about this health care law.

So here we are, 1 year later. We know the cost of health care is going up. The President said health care premiums would be lower for families by $2,500. No family has seen that--or none that I know of; certainly none I have talked to in Wyoming, not one. Instead, people have seen the cost of their health insurance going up, not down.

The President said he was never going to raise taxes. It turns out, in fact, there are a lot of tax increases as part of this health care law. Even the 1099 form Senator Johanns has championed on the part of small businesses around the country, the efforts to remove these onerous obligations on our small businesses, have nothing to do with health care. That got crammed into this bill in the dead of night so those who support the bill can claim it was going to lower the cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office admits costs are going up, not down, and this is absolutely impacting jobs.

The President promised there would be efforts for small businesses to have some advantages and some tax credits and some help, but what we found out is that if you have a small business with 10 employees and that number climbs to 11, you are going to lose some of those benefits. If you are paying your employees an average of over $25,000 a year and you want to give them a raise, you start losing some of the benefits. So in spite of the fact the President had 4 million postcards sent out to small business owners, very few of them have been able to take advantage of what was promised to them.

Now here we are where additional waivers are being given. We are at a point where over 2.5 million Americans have been given waivers from participating in the health care law. Interestingly enough, these are the very people, for the most part--a significant number--who lobbied for the bill. Once they found out what was in it, they said no, I don't want this to apply to me. Now we see that the State of Maine, the entire State of Maine, has been given a waiver.

I come to the floor today, a year after this has passed into law, and I say everybody in the country ought to be able to get a waiver and opt out of this health care law, opt out completely. These are decisions that should be made at the State level, at the local level. Washington's ``one size fits all'' has hardly ever worked for anything and it surely does not work for health care.

In Wyoming, at the Wyoming Health Fair in Buffalo, as I visited with people and talked to them, do you know what they are worried about? They are worried about losing their freedoms, losing their choice, losing their doctor, losing the health care plan they like. In spite of the President's promises, we know that about 80 percent of people who get their health insurance through small businesses are not going to be able to keep the health care they like. Why? Because of government mandates. Government has said we know what is best for you. You do not, we do. The government says: We know what is best for your family. Government doesn't know what is best. These ought to be local decisions. That is why Senator Lindsey Graham and I and a number of other cosponsors have introduced legislation to allow States to opt out of this health care law, opt out of the individual mandate, the requirement that forces Americans to buy government-approved insurance.

Let States make that decision if people in their own State need to live under those laws. Let States decide if the employers, the people who are the job creators in our communities, if they have to supply government-approved insurance to the people who live there. Let people make decisions at the local level.

You can lift any newspaper and look at what the Medicaid mandates are doing to our States and the budgets of the States. States such as Wyoming, where we balance our budgets every

year and live within our means, are being crushed by these Medicaid mandates. But it is not just small States such as Wyoming, in terms of population--California, New York, States all across the country are saying to this body: Let us out, let us opt out. We cannot live under these mandates.

The President's solution is to cram more people onto Medicaid, a program that doesn't work, where many doctors will not see these patients, where the reimbursements are so low hospitals say we cannot afford to see these patients because of the impact it will have. Even the actuaries, the people who look at this in the fair and appropriate way to look at the numbers, say 15 percent of the hospitals in this country 10 years from now may not be able to be open because of the way this health care law is going. That is not going to provide more access. It is providing less access.

Why have seniors rejected this so overwhelmingly? Seniors have looked at this and they see $500 billion in Medicare cuts, in things such as Medicare Advantage. There is an advantage to being in that program. That is why one out of four seniors has set up that program and chosen that program. It is because they want choice.

This health care law is one that is taking choice out of the hands of the American families, taking freedom out of the hands of the American families. Something I continue to hear from the people in Wyoming and across the country: We need to repeal and replace with commonsense solutions to allow people to buy insurance across State lines, make it legal to do that; to allow small businesses to pool their resources; to give incentives to individuals who go to something like the Wyoming Health Fair; and work on prevention and early detection of problems. Give those people the opportunity to make individual choices. Expand health savings accounts. Those are the sorts of things we can deal with in a responsible way to help American families get the care they want from the doctor they need at a price they can afford.

That is all the American people are asking for: the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford. They are not getting it under this health care law. It has now been enacted for a full year. The American people know the truth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the McConnell amendment, in favor of the McConnell amendment. Gas prices have increased 43 cents in the last month, and 77 cents a gallon over the last year. These skyrocketing prices are hurting American families, and are threatening to derail the economic recovery.

You say, how much is this impact on the American family? Well, the Department of Energy says the average American family will spend about $700 more on gas this year than they did last year. That is going to impact every family, every family trying to deal with bills and kids and a mortgage. It is not as if this problem happened overnight. For over 2 years, Americans have heard the President deliver speeches and make promises on energy.

But the President says one thing and then he does another. That ``say one thing, do another'' policy does nothing to ease the pain at the pump. The administration's policies are making the problems today worse. The President's reckless policies have virtually shut down offshore exploration for oil. Last week, former President Bill Clinton called the delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits ridiculous. Offshore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to drop 15 percent this calendar year. What that means is higher gas prices and fewer American jobs. The administration actually told Congress we can replace the loss of American oil from the Gulf of Mexico with more oil from OPEC. That is exactly what this administration told Congress in October. In justifying more restrictive offshore drilling rules, the administration admitted this would lead to lower production of American oil.

The administration wrote:

The impact on domestic deepwater hydrocarbon production as

a result of these regulations is expected to be negative.

Then the administration went on to say:

Currently there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC to

offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deepwater production that

could occur as a result of this rule.

That is this administration's mindset: Don't worry about domestic production. OPEC has us covered.

The administration's shutdown of American exploration is not the only problem. The administration is also aggressively implementing Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will drive up the cost of energy. The EPA's climate change regulations under the Clean Air Act will cause gas prices for every American to go up even more. That is why I am here today. The McConnell amendment will fix this problem. Senator Inhofe originally introduced the legislation in the Senate. It was introduced in conjunction with a bill in the House by Representative Fred Upton. This legislation will stop the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory overreach that is going to increase gas prices.

When Congress refused to pass the President's cap-and-trade scheme last year, the administration turned to plan B--the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. The theory behind it is that additional restrictions on carbon-based energy and higher costs for gasoline are needed to make green energy more competitive. The key word is ``competitive,'' not actually making green energy more affordable, just more competitive, not by driving down the cost of green energy but by driving up the cost of red, white, and blue American energy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has even said publicly: ``We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''

The price in Europe is $8 a gallon. Under this cover of creating green jobs, EPA regulations are increasing the cost of red, white, and blue energy. This administration is trying to achieve its goals, the same goals as cap and tax, by placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and gasoline production.

One of the ways the EPA will use the Clean Air Act is to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from America's oil refineries. We have not had a new oil refinery built in this country since 1976. The EPA's climate regulations will make it even more difficult and more costly to build and operate refineries. The result, of course, is higher gas prices at the pump and a greater reliance on imported gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency's climate regulations must be stopped. They are arbitrary; they are costly; they are destructive; and they are politically driven.

The EPA's climate rules are just one tool to make gasoline prices go up. But

this administration is proposing dozens more. I have introduced legislation similar to the McConnell amendment and the Inhofe bill. But my bill is more comprehensive. My bill, S. 228, is called the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. It will block the same manipulation of laws to increase the future cost of gasoline for all Americans. My legislation, which has the support of 20 Senators, would block the manipulation and misuse of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of citizen lawsuits.

I am trying to stop this administration from placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and other forms of affordable energy. The Environmental Species Act is currently being used to remove 187,000 square miles of land from energy exploration. A decision of this magnitude will drastically limit oil and gas development and exploration. They do this all in the name of climate change.

When the administration blocks production of American oil used to make gasoline, American families pay higher prices at the pump. They pay higher prices today, and the prices will remain high in the future. I plan to continue to fight the many ways this administration is trying to enact cap-and-tax policies and raise gas prices. The President says he wants renewable energy to be the cheapest form of energy. He needs to level with the American people. He needs to admit his scheme is to raise the cost of all other forms of energy and make the American people pay the bill.

We should be exploring for more American energy offshore, on Federal lands, and in Alaska. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment so we can block the administration's costly regulations and protect the pocketbooks of American families. The President's policies are making the pain at the pump even worse. It is time to stop these policies today with the McConnell amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor, as I do every week, as a physician who has practiced medicine and taken care of families in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law.

County commissioners from around the State of Wyoming are coming to town today for their annual meeting. It was 1 year ago today, at their annual meeting, when Nancy Pelosi--then-Speaker of the House--addressed that group and said: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.

That quote has been repeated again and again and again, and people now know what is in this health care law. People have found out. Every month since this law has been passed, people have found out additional things about the health care law they absolutely do not like. Now that the American people know what is in the bill, and they know they don't like it, let's get to the fundamentals of what the American people have asked for. When they asked for a change in health care in this country, they said they wanted the care they need from the doctor at a price they can afford. The new law fails that test, and it fails miserably.

It has only taken 1 year to break almost every promise the President made when he addressed the Congress and the country. So what I would like to do now is take a look, month by month, at how those promises were broken. I will start with March, since it is now March and this started with Nancy Pelosi's statement in March of 2010.

One year ago, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated the law to see how much it would actually cost. They told us the law could only reduce the deficit if it did something about the long-term insolvency of Medicare. Instead, the Democrats and the President proposed and adopted and signed into law cuts of over $500 billion from Medicare. This was not to save Medicare but to start a whole new government entitlement program, a decision the CBO said would increase the deficit by $260 billion.

Let's go to April. In April, we learned the costs for those Medicare cuts go way beyond dollars and cents. An analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services found these cuts could drive up to 15 percent of hospitals out of business. For this administration, the shortage of hospitals apparently takes a backseat to the shortage of Washington bureaucrats.

Let us go to May. In May, we learned over 200,000 Americans with preexisting conditions and expensive health insurance would not be eligible to enroll in the new high-risk pools created in the health care law; that is, of course, unless they were willing to completely drop the insurance they had and wait, without insurance--wait without insurance--for 6 months. Only then would they qualify for what was in the health care law. For many people with preexisting conditions, who were paying higher premiums, they felt that would be irresponsible behavior; that it would be risky, put them at financial risk. But that is what this administration and this government was proposing.

In June, after the administration sent over 4 million postcards to small businesses--you remember the postcards, the ones claiming those small businesses would be eligible for a tax credit--the Associated Press blew the whistle. It turned out the only small businesses that were fully eligible for these tax credits had to employ fewer than 25 people. So to be eligible at all, they had to have fewer than 25 people. Moreover, the Associated Press reported the tax credit drops off sharply if the company employs any more than 10 people or if the annual salary was averaging more than $25,000. So if you had 10 employees and paid them, on average, $25,000, you could get the tax credit. But once you went to that 11th employee and gave someone a raise,

you started to lose the attribute the administration said was so valuable.

That was in June. In July, the Obama administration's own Justice Department confirmed the individual mandate penalty is a tax increase. Well, when ABC News's George Stephanopoulos asked the President if the mandate penalty was a tax increase, the President said: ``I absolutely reject that notion.'' Well, if the President absolutely rejects the notion, why is his own Justice Department contradicting him?

In August, without so much as a hearing before Congress, the President made a recess appointment. He tapped Dr. Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. So how big is this Federal agency? Well, it includes oversight of a budget larger than the Pentagon's. Dr. Berwick believes the government must ration health care and that the only issue is whether we ration with our eyes wide open, as he said. Well, the President promised not to ration care, so why did he make an appointment of someone who believes it is inevitable to ration care and do it in a way without ever allowing the Senate-- Republicans and Democrats alike, Members of this body--to even have a hearing so this individual could explain his position, explain his previous comments, explain what he has said and written? The President refused and did a recess appointment of someone who never testified, never came to a confirmation hearing, and he put him in charge of a program with a budget larger than the Pentagon's. Can you imagine if the Secretary of Defense was made as a recess appointment without a congressional hearing? It is unthinkable.

In September, the administration released new rules estimating that 80 percent of small businesses would be forced to change the coverage of insurance they offer to their employees. These aren't my numbers, these are the administration's own numbers. But it was the President who said, over and over, if you like the coverage you have today, then you can keep it. Now we know that was another one of the President's empty promises.

In October, responding to complaints from unions and corporations, the Obama administration began handing out waivers--waivers that excused individual groups from ObamaCare's expensive mandates. These waivers went mostly to those politically connected to this administration. Most American families still have to bear the law's expensive burdens. Clearly, for this administration, playing favorites is more important than achieving fairness. I think every American ought to be able to get a waiver from this health care law.

In November, a majority of the American people voiced their opposition to this law and handed an election response that resulted in a significant change in the composition of the House and the Senate because the American people knew they did not want this health care law.

The American people were concerned--and they even wondered if this law was constitutional--and in December, a Federal judge in Virginia ruled it was unconstitutional to force Americans to buy a product. The Service Employees International Union, one of the biggest unions in the country, also admitted in December that fulfilling the requirements of ObamaCare would be financially impossible. This is the same law they said the country needed when they lobbied in favor of it.

In January of this year, the Medicare Actuary called the administration's claim the health care law would bring down costs ``false more than true.'' Also, a Federal judge in Florida struck down the entire law as unconstitutional.

In February--last month--we learned the 2012 budget the IRS submitted to Congress specifically mentions the health care law 250 times. They mention it as a source of authority and funding for new powers. They called the health care law ``the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years.'' To begin implementing these changes will require thousands of new Washington bureaucrats.

Well, that was through February, and here we are, on March 9. Did the American people find out anything new about the health care law in March? Absolutely. Last Friday night, the Secretary of Health and Human Services granted another 150 waivers--another 150 waivers. Now there are over 1,040 waivers covering 2.6 million individuals. These are people who don't want to live under the Obama health care law. They don't want it to apply to them. I think every American ought to have a right to that same waiver. Of those 2.6 million people who received waivers, 1.2 million are members of unions. So that is 46 percent of the waivers have been given to union members.

If you look at the Web site you must go to for that information, the Secretary has tried to disguise how they label these individuals, and so union plans are now called ``multiemployer plans.'' Under this change in the name, at the Web site you go to learn about this, are the words ``promoting transparency.'' So we have an administration that says one thing but does another.

But the American people now know what is in the law. As they were studying the law before the vote, they didn't want it. Now they know all about it, and they still don't want it. It is clear it is unsustainable, unaffordable, and unconstitutional. It is time to repeal and replace it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to discuss an issue that is critically facing the American people: It is the price of gasoline at the pump. It is something that, in my opinion, will impact our economy, impact the economic recovery we are all hoping will continue in this country. But with every penny the cost of gasoline goes up, it has been estimated it takes about a billion dollars away from the amount of money that can be spent on other things in this country and to growing the economy.

We are at a point where the American people, who have to balance their budgets every year--and States have to do it, of course. Washington doesn't do that, but the American people do. They have to focus on their pocketbooks. When they are going to fill up with gas at the pump and are noticing that they are approaching a point where it is going to be $100 to get a fill-up, they worry about the impact on the quality of their life, their ability to put food on the table for their children, and clothing on their children, and even have the money to get back and forth to work--those fortunate enough to have jobs.

One can say: Well, is it really a problem? I believe it is. I filled up yesterday morning in Casper. A young man in front of me at the filling station was filling up his pickup truck. He was watching the numbers go up and up. I filled up a week ago in Wyoming as well. We use a lot of gasoline in Wyoming. We travel long distances. I was filling up in the evening. I put my credit card in, and it stopped at $75 because apparently they have to reset these pumps. One would think that with $75 one would have enough money to fill up. But not as these gas prices continue to rise.

My concern is that so much of this money is being sent overseas to people who are trying to blow us up. We have an opportunity to be much more secure in our energy resources by developing our energy resources at home. It just seems that this administration's policies are making it that much harder.

One may say: How high can gasoline prices go? With the unrest in the Middle East, a front-page story a few days ago in USA TODAY said: ``If unrest spreads, gas may hit $5 a gallon''--$5 a gallon by summer.

We need to do some things in this country that this administration has continued to block. We need to find more of our own energy, be reliant more on ourselves and less on foreign sources of energy. That means doing three things: exploring offshore, exploring on Federal land, and exploring in Alaska. We know there are huge reserves of oil, of energy in those locations. Yet day by day those efforts are

being blocked. The impact on our overall economy is huge, and it is because of policies of this administration.

USA TODAY this morning: ``Will gas prices stall U.S. upturn? Consumers could cut spending again.''

It is not in the best interest of this country for us to have energy policies that make it more expensive for Americans to gas up their cars. It does not help the economy of this country when the policies of this administration do things that make it more expensive and harder for small businesses to create jobs and hire people. We are trying to get people hired, back to work.

That is what we need to focus on--jobs and the economy. When the administration's policies cut into our ability to use energy sources from within this country--red, white, and blue energy jobs; red, white, and blue energy as well--and just send more money overseas, that does not help us as a nation, it does not help our economy, and it does not help strengthen our communities. We are so blessed in this country with wonderful families, wonderful communities, and wonderful land. Yet we do not seem to be making wise decisions on a daily basis with the policies coming out of this administration.

It is interesting to see who is actually benefiting from these increased costs because we know American families are not benefiting, we know American taxpayers are not benefiting, and we know people trying to get their kids off to school are not benefiting. Who is benefiting from this huge increase in the cost of energy and the cost of oil? All we need to do is go to the front page of the business section of today's New York Times: ``Fears About Mideast Oil Pay Off for Russia.'' For Russia, Mr. President. ``Whatever the eventual outcome of the Arab world's social upheaval, there is a clear economic winner so far: Vladimir V. Putin.'' Right there, that is the winner. The economic policies of this administration to limit our ability and curtail our ability to use American energy, American oil, to keep down the cost of gasoline, are benefiting Russia.

It says:

Russia, which pumps more oil than Saudi Arabia, is reaping

a windfall from the steep rise in global energy prices

resulting from instability in oil regions of the Middle East

and North Africa . . . Russia does not have any oil wells

standing idle . . . Right now Russia is pumping oil at its

top capacity.

In a country where we and this Congress in particular choose winners and losers in energy, the winner seems to be Russia because of the policies of this administration.

The Hill newspaper this morning said: ``Pump pain for Obama.'' This clearly lies specifically at the feet of the President because of the policies of this administration.

We have had a situation in the Gulf of Mexico where there has been a moratorium, which is extended almost permanently, shutting down the use of oil reserves for the United States. The administration--so happy, and pronounced the moratorium--has not until this week allowed for an additional permit and finally one when the price of gasoline went up at the pump 38 cents on average, about $3.50 per gallon.

The Department of Interior, last October in the Federal Register, had a solution. They had some ideas about this because the Department of the Interior admitted--the President's own Secretary and his Department of Interior admitted that what they were doing in the Gulf of Mexico would have an impact.

It says:

The impact on the domestic deepwater hydrocarbon production

as a result of these regulations is expected to be negative.

What it means is that it is going to cut down on American sources of energy. We need energy security. We as a nation need to do it in an environmentally responsible way, and we need to focus on economic growth. This administration does not seem to be willing to make that distinction about energy security and economic growth and the needs we have to help make our economy stronger.

What is the administration's position? What, as of October of last year, was their position on all of this to say: OK, we know we are going to have impacts in the gulf. They didn't say: Oh, I know, we can go onshore and look on Federal land. They didn't say: Let's go to Alaska to explore. This is this administration's position. They said:

Currently, there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC--

In OPEC, in the Middle East--

to offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deepwater production

that could occur as a result of this rule.

The rule that they are going to shut down the gulf.

Therefore, the increase in the price of hydrocarbon

products to consumers from the increased cost to drill and

operate on the Outer Continental Shelf is expected to be

minimal.

That is the administration's solution. They do not expect anything to happen. They are not worried about it. And if there is a problem, just buy more oil from OPEC, send more American dollars overseas. That is the administration's position? And what about the impact on our economy?

We do have a Secretary of Energy. One would think he would be concerned about the cost of energy and the impact on American families. Not so when we look at some of the statements he has made. In the past, he said:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels of Europe.

That is the proposal of the Secretary of Energy--figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. How much does gasoline cost in Europe? Almost $8 a gallon.

The President, when he was a Senator and running for President, did not seem to think high energy prices were a problem. He just wanted the price to go up gradually. He said the problem is when things go up too quickly.

The American people who try to put bread on the table for their kids, clothing on their backs, get them off to school, and then go to work themselves, notice this. They know every time the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes up by a penny or a nickel or 38 cents, as it has most recently, the economy will suffer as a result. It is specifically a result of the policies of this administration, the policies that ignore the need for American energy.

At a time when we need to be focused on jobs, that we need to realize the amount of uncertainty in the Middle East, there is now sticker shock at the pumps, and it is the policies of this administration that are keeping us from developing the energy security we need.

I yield the floor.