Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 today as someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming, taken care of families there for a quarter of a century, working with people all across our great State, as a physician who has also served in our State senate.

Both in my practice, as well as in my service in the State senate, I have dealt with the issue of Medicaid, a program that was set up to help low-income Americans obtain health care. So I came today with a doctor's second

opinion about recent developments and findings with regard to the health care law because, day after day, we see news reports showing States all across the country facing extreme financial budget pressures, even bankruptcy. One of the key factors exacerbating State fiscal troubles is the Medicaid Program. Over the next 10 years, Washington will spend about $4.4 trillion on Medicaid. At the State level, Medicaid spending now consumes roughly one-quarter of the budgets of each of the States.

Increases in Medicaid costs often force Governors and State legislators to make drastic cuts to local priorities, such as education, law enforcement, public safety. As I mentioned, I did serve in the Wyoming State Legislature--5 years in the Wyoming State Senate-- and was there last week to address the legislatures, the Wyoming State Senate and House, to talk with them, listen to them about their concerns.

In the State of Wyoming, we are required, on an annual basis, to balance our budget. We do it every year. So I know from a firsthand experience that tough choices need to be made. That is why I can tell you this current health care law, President Obama's health care law, is not going to make it any easier for our States to close the budget gaps they are facing, and, as a matter of fact, it is going to make the situation worse.

The President's health care law created the biggest Medicaid expansion in history. The law says every State must provide Medicaid for every one of their citizens who earns up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty limit. This does not work for the States, and it does not work for the people who will be forced onto Medicaid.

The health care law does not provide additional resources to States that are already strapped for cash in order to try to deal with paying for this incredible expansion of Medicaid, and it certainly does not give States additional financial help so they can pay health care providers enough to participate in Medicaid--because about 40 percent of physicians across the country refuse to see Medicaid patients. My partners and I took care of everyone in Wyoming who would call or come to our office, regardless of ability to pay, but across the country about 40 percent of physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients.

So I have said, over and over throughout this health care reform debate over the last year or so, that having a health care government insurance card does not mean someone will automatically have access to medical care. The President frequently talks about making sure people have coverage, but that does not necessarily mean they will have access to care.

So I wish to be very clear. The States, especially my home State of Wyoming, do an incredible job of running the Medicaid programs. They do it with limited resources. But a weak economy, combined with a high unemployment rate, drove Medicaid enrollment to record levels. So it is not a surprise that Medicaid is quickly consuming greater and greater portions of State budgets, cutting into money that is being used to pay for teachers, for police, and for firefighters.

Former Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said it best when he called the health care law's Medicaid expansion ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Governor Bredesen went on to say that ``Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage.'' Let me repeat that. Medicaid, which the President has used as the approach to expand coverage, the Governor, the Democratic Governor, says Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. He want to say:

It's a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor

women and their children. It's not health care reform to dump

more money into Medicaid.

Well, the former Governor of Tennessee is not alone. On November 9, 2010, Governor Brian Schweitzer, of my neighboring State of Montana, also a Democrat, met with his State's health industry leaders to talk about Medicaid, the challenges they are facing.

What he said was: ``As the manager of Montana's budget, I am worried because there are only three states that will increase the number of people on Medicaid at a faster rate than Montana, thanks to the new health care bill.''

He said: ``My job is to try and find ways to go forward that Montana can continue to fund Medicaid and not be like 48 other States . . . broke.''

So, in January, 33 Governors and Governors-elect sent a letter to President Obama, to Congressional leadership, and to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius. What did they say? Well, the letter asks Federal lawmakers to lift the constraints placed on them by the health care law's mandates. The Governors are begging Congress for help.

They each have very unique Medicaid Programs across the country, the different States, and they want, they asked, they need the flexibility to manage their programs, their individual programs as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Well, they all need to make tough but necessary budget decisions, and they cannot do it when Washington bureaucrats and the enduring wisdom of those in Washington will not allow it. You want to add insult to injury? This week, the President claimed, as he was addressing Governors at the National Governors Association, that the health care law offers States flexibility to create their own health care plans.

This was Monday in an address to the National Governors Association. The President made an announcement. He announced: ``If your state can create a plan that covers as many people as affordably and comprehensively as the Affordable Care Act does--without increasing the deficit--you can implement that plan.''

Well, that is quite a tall and almost impossible order. The American people and certainly the Governors who were listening to him in the audience on Monday saw right through the President's PR stunt. The President's plan requires States to create health care plans that imitate his health care law, rather than actually offering States true freedom to innovate better solutions. There are better solutions out there than what this body and the House of Representatives passed and the President signed into law almost 1 year ago.

It seems to me the President wants to have his cake and eat it too. He tells the States they already have the ability to craft a different health care plan, but, of course, there is a catch. What the President does not say, what he would not tell the Governors, is that States can only design different health care plans if--if, and only if--they meet the health care law's litany of Washington mandates.

States still must pass legislation mandating all its citizens buy health insurance. States must still provide Washington-approved insurance coverage--Washington levels, Washington approved--limiting use of innovative health care products such as health savings accounts. Oh, no, that is not allowed by the President. States are still locked into the law's Medicaid expansion spending requirements. During these tough economic times, the States need certainty, they need consistency, not more Washington doublespeak.

Last month, I introduced, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, a bill giving the States exactly what they need: flexibility, freedom, and choice. The bill is called the State Health Care Choice Act. This legislation is simple, it is straightforward, and it protects States rights by allowing them to voluntarily opt out of portions of the health care law.

Specifically, our bill offers States the chance to opt out of the law's individual mandate, to opt out of the law's employer mandate and penalties, to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and to opt out of the insurance benefit mandates.

Why should the Federal Government, why should Washington, force the States to adopt a one-size-fits-all health care plan? States can decide what works best for them. They need to be able to act on those decisions. They do not need Washington to tell them what to do.

Well, some of the most innovative health care policy ideas truly do originate at the State and local levels. Governors, State legislators, State insurance commissioners, each have much greater insight into what works for their citizens and what does not. States are feeling trapped by the new health care law's mandates.

My bill, the one along with Senator Graham, gives the States the sovereignty to pursue their own reform ideas and approaches. Each State deserves the right--let me repeat that:

each State deserves the right--to pursue health care reforms they think actually help the citizens of their State.

The States have always been the laboratories of democracy, the laboratories to test good ideas. Unfortunately, this health care law locks them into a one-size-fits-all approach. The States want their freedom. The States deserve their freedom. Our bill gives it to them, offering the flexibility needed to generate better health care reform solutions, solutions that do not require the States to follow a Washington plan that may ultimately leave them broke.

In writing the State Health Care Choice Act, I started with the assumption that people generally can be trusted to do the right thing, and society prospers when government has less to say about how people run their lives. Others, many in this body, start by assuming Washington knows best and should take more authority over everyone else.

Well, the States, the American people are telling us they want health care reform. But they are telling us loudly and clearly that they do not want this health care law. So it is time to give the States the autonomy to create health care systems that work best for them, and we do not have to dismantle the Nation's current health care system, build it up in the image of big government, shift costs to the States, add billions to our national debt, and then try to sell it as reform.

There are better ideas, and I have put forward mine. I ask all Senators to join me in cosponsoring the State Health Care Choice Act.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today because, on Monday, President Obama introduced his new budget. What we saw in that budget is, for the most part, more of the same--more spending, more taxes, more borrowing. We see this budget from a President who doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the Nation's fiscal crisis.

When we start digging down into the budget the President proposed and look into the Internal Revenue Service component of that budget, what we see is the Internal Revenue Service is starting to focus in and audit ObamaCare. There is a glaring difference in the budget this year from previous years because of the President's new health spending law. The IRS now has unprecedented power over health care in America.

In fact, when we take a look at this budget, and specifically the Internal Revenue Service's fiscal year 2012 budget request, over 250 times the Affordable Care Act--known in the budget as the ACA but known by people all across the country as ObamaCare--is mentioned. Over 250 times.

To me, the goal of the health care law has been to let people all across this country get the care they need from the doctors they want at a price they can afford.

As a member of my party, looking at our economy, looking at the deficit, looking at the incredible debt, what I think we need to do is make it cheaper and easier to create private sector jobs in this country. That is the way we get the economy going again. But when I read this budget, and specifically IRS requests, it seems to me it is making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in our country.

The people of this country are not taxed too little. The problem is that the government spends too much. When I take a look at this budget, that is exactly what I see being rejected by this administration because it seems this administration is more interested in taxing, in raising taxes, rather than cutting spending.

When you take a look at what the IRS says in the budget, it says:

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010

presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is the IRS talking about the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people in the middle of the night, written behind closed doors. We are all familiar with it. Now it is presenting a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Service goes on to say:

This law represents the largest set of tax law changes in

more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend

the tax laws.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the budget gives the IRS the ability to hire 5,000 new workers. After taking a close look at the IRS's plans, we know they will have to hire over 1,000 new IRS bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats, to implement ObamaCare measures. What are some of those that we are now going to have IRS agents coming and looking into? One is the tanning tax, the component that promotes compliance with the new excise tax on tanning facilities. The IRS is requesting another $1.5 million and requesting 81 more full-time equivalents to go ahead and implement this tanning tax. For oversight--they call it ``strengthen oversight of exempt hospitals.'' These are tax-exempt hospitals, hospitals that do not pay taxes, but to do an oversight of these hospitals, they want another $9.9 million and another 84 full-time employees. For the new health coverage information reporting, they want $34 million and 100 full-time employees. For something I call ObamaCare 101--assisting taxpayers in understanding the new provisions--the IRS is requesting $22.2 million and hiring another 150 full-time equivalents. And then, of course, for the call centers, IRS call centers--so if someone has a question, they can call and ask a question--they want another $15 million because of the complexity of this new health care law that is going to be difficult for people to understand.

The American people and small business owners--and those are the job creators of this country--want the IRS to make their lives easier, not tougher, not audit their health care choices and health care decisions. But adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of new dollars to the IRS is not going to make health care better. It is not going to make care more available for anyone.

I am going to continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion to fight to repeal and replace this health care law and to do it with patient-centered reforms that help the private sector, not the IRS, create more jobs.

This morning, we had a little event called Wyoming Wednesdays where people from Wyoming who are here come together in Senator Enzi's office, and we have coffee and doughnuts and visit.

One of the people here from Wyoming said: I saw a sign that was worrisome.

I said: What is the sign?

He said that this location where they are putting in offices used to be a parking lot. When you are replacing a parking lot with more offices for more Washington bureaucrats, that is not a good sign for the rest of America.

Here we have the IRS saying they are dealing with a major challenge because of the health care law. It represents the largest tax law change in more than 20 years. More than 40 provisions are being amended in the tax law to go after things. They want this kind of money to implement the tax changes with regard to the indoor tanning services-- 81 new full-time equivalents--and they say what is involved in this. The IRS says there are as many as 25,000 businesses that provide indoor tanning services they are now going to tax, including about 10,000 businesses that offer tanning services along with other services such as spas, health clubs, and beauty salons.

We are here in the Senate, in Congress, with 9 percent unemployment in this country, with people looking for work, and more government jobs are being created, and these people are creating government jobs to make it harder on small businesses. It gets right to the crux of it right here because the IRS even says these entities, all these tanning entities, typically do not have experience filing Federal excise tax returns. So what is the government going to do? Come in, make them file claims and forms they do not have experience with. It is going to be costly; it is

going to take time; it is going to increase taxes. That is not a way to create new jobs.

They want 10 million more dollars to strengthen oversight on tax- exempt hospitals. These are tax-exempt hospitals. Why are the American taxpayers being asked to pay another $10 million to hire 84 full-time equivalents to deal with tax-exempt hospitals? Because, according to the law that was crammed down the throats of the American people, the IRS is now required to review at least every 3 years the benefit activities of tax-exempt hospital organizations, which number about 5,100 in this country. They actually say in the budget request by the IRS, as part of the President's budget that was submitted on Monday:

These are new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals which

include a majority of hospitals in the United States.

We are going to increase taxpayer dollars going for more IRS auditors and make it harder and more burdensome on the tax-exempt hospitals in terms of paperwork and what they need to do.

It goes on and on. That is why the American people are fed up with what is happening in Washington.

Let's talk a little bit about the CLASS Act because there is a whole component of the budget wanting 30 staff members added to the health department office overseeing implementation of what is called the CLASS Act. That stands for community living assistance services and supports.

The President's own debt commission--remember, the President appointed this commission about a year ago to say: Let's look into the debt. People thought that was a bold move, a bipartisan move, a lot of people coming together to take a look at this debt. For a year, the President said: We have a debt commission looking into this, so he did not deal with the debt. Now that the debt commission came out with its report in December, the President has mostly ignored it. Yet the debt commission--it was bipartisan, chaired by Erskine Bowles, a former Chief of Staff of the White House for Bill Clinton, and Al Simpson, a former Senator from my State of Wyoming--came out, took a look at the health care law, and specifically honed in on this CLASS Act.

One of the Members of this Senate, a colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, someone who voted for the health care law, called it a Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of.

The President's budget commission, the bipartisan budget commission, looked at it, and they have significant concerns about the sustainability of the program and called for the program to either be repealed or reformed because it is not sustainable. They have raised concerns. People on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns. Yet the Secretary of Health and Human Services has, in her budget, money for 30 additional staff members added to the health department offices. Why? To go over the details of this act that people say ought to be repealed because, as it says, the details of the CLASS Act--they want to spend $93.5 million informing and educating people about the CLASS Act. I can tell them right now it is unsustainable, it is irresponsible, and it is something that should be repealed. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services wants to spend over $93 million of taxpayer money to inform and educate the public about this component of the health care law that people on both sides of the aisle think needs to go away.

Finally, as someone who believes this health care law is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers--what we saw in the President's budget that came out Monday, coming out for next year, is it is asking for over 1,000 new IRS agents to go ahead and implement the various components and responsibilities that have been put on their heads by this health care law. This is only the beginning. The entire health care law does not really come fully into play until 2014. That is when Americans are going to have more IRS agents, more money being spent looking into their own personal lives, looking into what kind of insurance they have.

Is it acceptable to the government? Is it government approved? That is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation called the State Health Care Choice Act, to let States decide. Let States decide if Washington ought to be telling the people in their States that they must buy, that every individual must buy government-approved insurance. Let the States make that decision. Let the States opt out if they would like. Let the States decide if all the businesses in their States must provide government-approved insurance to their workers. Let the States decide as to Medicaid, a program for low-income Americans which is being expanded significantly by cramming 16 million more Americans into Medicaid. Governors all across the country in a bipartisan way are saying: Our States cannot afford this.

A New York Times story shows Jerry Brown from California and Andrew Cuomo from New York complaining about the mandates Medicaid is putting on their States, the additional burdens in terms of taxes and the mandates and what it is going to do to the people of the State who are trying to educate their kids and the cost and the pressure on education dollars because they are getting shifted to Medicaid, the cost of dollars shifted away from public safety, from firefighters, police officers, other public safety officers. As to this health care law, I think people at the State level ought to decide that, no, we don't want this to apply to us.

That is why I come today, again as a physician who practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, took care of thousands and thousands of patients and families, trying to help people get better, all in a way that now I think is being taken in the wrong direction by this health care law, and why I think we want to continue to look for ways to make sure people get the care they want from the doctors they need at a price they can afford. The health care law that was passed by this body fails in all of those respects, and now we see, with the President's budget, a request for money for another thousand IRS agents, not to help people get better, not to help people get the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford--no, not at all--but to audit the health care of the American people.

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the Senator's unanimous-consent request contains components he knows are controversial and opposed by numerous Senators and for that reason that proposal cannot pass the Senate today. Specifically, the proposal would extend the TAA-related provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the failed stimulus package, which most Members of this side of the aisle strenuously opposed for very sound reasons. That stimulus spent approximately $1 trillion under the guise that it would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent. Yet nearly 2 years later, we are still at a point where unemployment rates, which had risen to the area of 10 percent, are now still at 9 percent. I am reminded this is nearly double the average annual rate of the last administration.

It would be one thing if there was clear evidence that differing TAA programs were effective in meeting these intended goals, but research suggests the efficacy of the TAA training funding is not as convincing. At the insistence of Senators Coburn and Enzi, the GAO found that in fiscal year 2009, nine Federal agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 separate employment and job training programs, including TAA. Despite large Federal spending, GAO could not conclude whether the programs have had any meaningful benefit. The GAO report states:

Little is known about the effectiveness of the employment

and training programs we identified because only 5 reported

demonstrating whether outcomes can be attributed to the

program through an impact study.

As a result, I object.

Yes.

Madam President, I would be happy to, as a matter of record, submit for the record the GAO study that was reported by Senators Coburn and Enzi to outline the entire study and the reason I am objecting today.

Madam President, I do look forward to having those additional discussions and debates on all the issues raised by my distinguished colleague from Ohio. That is why, after the two distinguished Senators on the floor today offer the three different proposals, I have a counterproposal that I hope they would accept, an alternative package that maintains the underlying bill H.R. 359. It extends the Andean Trade Preference Act for 18 months and extends the permanent staffing prohibition for 18 months. I will be offering that after we have finished an additional discussion by the other side.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and for

the reasons I have stated during the previous request and debate, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, this third proposal deals solely with the health coverage tax credit, including the increases contained in the stimulus that went from 65 percent to 80 percent. It is important to note that the health coverage tax credit is not going away. It is merely reverting to the previous level which will require recipients to increase their contribution for health coverage. The health coverage tax credit stimulus level of 80 percent, which represents one of the most generous health care premium subsidies provided by the Federal Government, is unsustainable.

As a result, I object.

Madam President, there are those folks around the country--and I go home to Wyoming repeatedly; I will be there again tomorrow evening--who are concerned about a $14 trillion debt this country is trying to live with, a deficit this year of $1.5 trillion. The United States, in this last year, spent $3.7 trillion and brought in $2.2 trillion. That is not sustainable. It cannot continue. We simply cannot continue at this level, where 41 cents of every dollar we spend in this country is borrowed, much of it from people overseas.

It should not catch anyone by surprise today that the stimulus provisions we are talking about--the provisions from that stimulus package--are set to expire. In fact, it has been well known since the day the stimulus passed.

The current financial position of the United States forces us to examine all Federal programs and make some very tough and difficult decisions.

I agree the Senate should extend the prohibition on implementation of the Department of Labor's merit staffing rule which I believe is harmful and unnecessary. For these reasons, I propose an alternative package that maintains the underlying bill, H.R. 359, regarding the elimination of the taxpayer-funded Presidential election campaigns, extends the ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Act, for 18 months, and extends the merit staffing prohibition for 18 months.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 359, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Madam President, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

Mr. President, I come today to the Senate floor as a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter of a century, taking care of the families of Wyoming, and to do what I have done throughout the past year--provide a doctor's second opinion on this health care law people across the country are now coming to grips with as they finally are realizing what is in the bill or, as the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, once said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

People are finding out what is in it, and people all across the country are not happy. We know what the American people want. I know what the people of Wyoming want in terms of health care. They want the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. That was the goal many of us had over a year ago when we started this discussion and debate on the Senate floor. What ultimately got passed-- and many people believe crammed down the throats of the American people--is now a health care law where people are at risk of losing what they want and what they have.

The promises made by the President are such that they have turned to be, in many ways, unfulfilled. The President said this would actually drive down the cost of care--the health care law--that insurance rates would go down $2,500 per family. What people have seen all across the country is the cost of their health care insurance rates going up instead of down. The President said: If you like the care you have, you can keep it. Now we know that a majority of people who get their health insurance through their work are not going to be able to keep the coverage they have liked.

So I come to the floor with my colleague, Senator Graham, because we have introduced a bill, S. 244, the State Health Care Choice Act, which allows States to make a decision to say: Is this something we want in our State?

I will turn to my colleague from South Carolina before getting into the specifics. I know the Senator has visited with his Governor about the concerns his Governor has, a newly elected Governor who has concerns and actually addressed those concerns with the President about the health care law and the mandates on the people of South Carolina.

So I would ask my friend and colleague, are there things we as a body ought to be considering to make life easier for the people of his home State of South Carolina? And I can talk about things for Wyoming as well.

The people of Wyoming overwhelmingly want the opportunity to remove themselves from the heavy burden of the Obama- passed and supported health care law. There are huge expenses. The Medicaid mandate is huge.

We are doing exactly that. As of last week, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has given--just last week--500 new waivers to allow individuals who get their insurance through work, and now a total of 729 waivers affecting 2.2 million people to opt out--individuals to opt out--of the specific requirement.

I think States ought to have the right to make decisions about the Medicaid mandate, about the individual mandate that requires everyone to buy government-approved health insurance. It is a mandate. Congress is telling people they have to buy government-approved health insurance. I think it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide. People will get penalized. There are going to be IRS agents checking to make sure people have this government-mandated and government-approved health insurance. I think people ought to be able to--the State ought to decide if they are going to make every employer in the State--the business creators, the entities that hire people, the small businesses, the job creators--I think the State ought to have the right to make the decision to say, Are we going to make those employers--force them--to provide government-approved health insurance.

It is a big cost for businesses that are trying to hire people. I think States ought to be able to opt out of the benefit mandate which defines how much insurance somebody has to have. Also, in many cases it is overinsurance--more than they need, more than they want, and more than they can afford.

Well, of the 2.2 million people who have gotten waivers by the Secretary of Health and Human Services--and, as I say, you need to have friends in high places if you want a waiver, because I know the small business owners in my State, and probably in the State of the Senator from South Carolina as well, couldn't get to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to get these waivers. But 860,000 waivers have gone to members of 166 different unions' benefit programs. It is interesting, because across the country unions have received 40 percent of the waivers, yet union members are only 7 percent of the workforce. So it seems a disproportionate number of these waivers have been given to members of the unions.

What I find so intriguing is that these are the same people from the same unions that lobbied so hard to get this health care law passed. Now that they know what is in it, they don't want it to apply to them. That is a concern about which I think the American people will say, Well, if all of these different union members can get a waiver, why can't I? Why can't States be able to opt out as well?

In a national poll last Friday, February 4, the majority of Americans said States ought to have the right to opt out of the health care law. A majority of Americans believe their State ought to have a right to opt out. We now know that seven states--Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia--have already passed laws or constitutional amendments making it illegal to force anyone to buy health insurance. Their State legislatures--to me, that is how I am reading it--say, we are going to opt out whether this law passes or not.

Seven States have already passed laws or constitutional amendments making it illegal to force someone to buy health insurance.

Twenty-six States have joined the lawsuit, including my home State of Wyoming which recently joined. New Governors have been elected and sworn into office in January, so five new States have joined the lawsuit, saying, This law isn't constitutional. People from Congress shouldn't be able to go into your home and make you buy a government-approved product if you don't want to buy it. The background of the Senator from South Carolina is superior to mine in the legal field or the courts, but it sure sounds to me as if rulings from Virginia and Florida uphold my firm belief that Congress can't make people buy products.

I think the attorneys general are making decisions based on what they believe is in the best interests of the citizens of their State, and they are saying, People of our State have rights, and we have a Constitution, and that Constitution should trump the 2,700- page health care law.

What do people want? What do the States want? Flexibility, freedom, and choice. I know that is what people in Wyoming want. We are rugged individuals who want flexibility, freedom, and choice. I think every State ought to have the opportunity to make that decision, and that is why this bill is on the floor of the Senate.

Last week I did vote to repeal the entire Obama health care law because I think it is bad for patients and providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and I think it is bad for the taxpayers. I think it will bankrupt the Nation. I think what is now happening is it is also bankrupting the States. Governors, having to deal with this Medicaid mandate, are realizing that to listen to Washington, they are going to

have to take money away from education. They are going to have to take money away from public services. They ought to have a right to make a decision at the State level as to what they want to do, what laws ought to apply.

One size doesn't fit all. I know what works in Wyoming is not necessarily what works in South Carolina or West Virginia and certainly may not work in California or New York. That is why States ought to make a decision about ways to help people in their own State get the care they need from the doctors they want at prices they can afford. This massive health care law does not accomplish that.

There are things we mutually must do to make it easier and cheaper for people to get the health care they need, the doctors they want, at the price they can afford. Number 1, as my colleague mentioned, make it legal for people to shop around and buy across State lines. We can't do that right now in this country. That in itself, as studies show, would result in over 10 million Americans who don't have insurance today getting insurance.

Most people get their insurance through work for the simple reason that it is a tax deduction to the company they get their insurance through, but if they buy insurance personally, individually, they have to pay taxes on that money before they pay for the insurance. So I think people who end up buying their health insurance individually ought to get the same tax benefits as those who get it through work do. That would make a big difference in bringing down the specific costs to those folks.

I think we need to have incentives that help people actually stay healthy. I ran a program in Wyoming. I was a volunteer at a program called the Wyoming Health Fairs, bringing low-cost health screenings to people. I did health reports on television called ``Helping You Care For Yourself,'' giving people information they could use to stay healthy.

This health care law has money in it aimed at prevention, but it basically has money for jungle gyms and street lamps and pathways, but actually no incentive to get somebody to get up and exercise and get their weight down and their cholesterol under control, their blood pressure under control.

Then I think we have to do something about the lawsuit abuse out there, which drives up the cost of care as doctors order tests not necessarily to help the patient but to make sure they are not missing some very rare condition, and that significantly adds to the cost of care, in the billions and billions of dollars every year.

That is why we come to the floor to discuss S. 244. The title is State Health Care Choice Act. That is what it truly is--State health care, and choice. It is a choice to be made by the States about health care because if the American people want anything, it is flexibility, freedom, and choice.

I yield the floor.

What we are trying to do is actually provide people with the care they need, the doctors they want, at a cost they can afford. Yet, when we look at this health care law that--remember, it was written behind closed doors in spite of the promises. That is why people were so offended and are still opposed to this. We had votes in the middle of the night, and there were all those special deals cut for Senators to get that 60th vote.

What I hear most about as I travel my State are the proposed cuts to Medicare. As the Senator mentioned, it was $500 billion. You talked about the President having a commission to look at the debt. What that commission said is that if you are going to take money from Medicare, which this law does--$500 billion--it doesn't do it to help strengthen Medicare or lengthen the life or the vitality of Medicare; it does it to start a whole new government program. It takes $155 billion from hospitals, $202 billion from the 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage, $15 billion from nursing homes, $40 billion from home health agencies, and $7 billion from hospices.

As my colleague from Arizona said--he mentioned the CLASS Act, which has been called a Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of. The President's own debt commission says repeal that because, with the way that is set up in terms of taking the money in first so they can count that as coming in, the obligations 10 years and beyond will bankrupt this country. Everyone on both sides of the aisle realizes that. The bipartisan President's debt commission realized it to the point that they put it in one of their recommendations. To hear our colleagues and the last speaker talk about the fact that this may actually help with the deficit and with the debt, anybody who looks at this over the long term and the nature of our country knows this will bankrupt the country.

I worry about the jobs in this country. We are at 9.4 percent unemployment. I know both of us as Senators are working to try to find ways to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs in America. This health care law makes it more expensive and harder to create private sector jobs.

I would like to see every citizen in this country get a waiver. I would like every State to have an opportunity to get waivers because last week the Secretary of Health and Human Services gave another 500 new waivers. The total now is

729 waivers. You can find them on the HHS Web site. It covers 2.2 million people.

It is interesting because before this bill was passed through in the middle of the night, labor unions publicly supported this health care law. Now there are 166 union benefit funds that are exempt and have gotten the waivers. They got the waivers. Unions now have 860,000 out of the 2.2 million waivers. Unions now have 40 percent of all the waivers even though they are only 7 percent of the private sector workforce in this country.

My question to my colleague is, if this law is so good, why do so many people who supported it in the first place now say they don't want it to apply to them? Is it, as Nancy Pelosi said when she was Speaker of the House before the election--before the election that repudiated this health care law and the way it was crammed down the throats of the American public--didn't Speaker Pelosi say that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it?

It seems to me, and I ask my colleague from Arizona, that as people know more about what is in this law, it is less popular on a daily basis. Yesterday, 58 percent of Americans, in a Rasmussen poll, said they would like to have it repealed, and the numbers of people who thought all of us ought to be able to get waivers was even higher than that.

The President said the same thing in June of 2009 when he visited and spoke to the American Medical Association. So when that issue didn't really come to the floor, as a number of us would have liked, in this health care law that was written, as I say, behind closed doors, they asked Howard Dean, then-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, why they don't include it, and he said: We can't stand up to the trial lawyers--who have such a remarkable influence on the party on the other side of the aisle.

I am hoping that the President, in his statement in his State of the Union Address, was sincere because it clearly did not follow through what he said in June of 2009 when he met with doctors from all across the country.

After the Senator finishes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when I am finished with my remarks, the junior Senator from South Dakota be allowed to speak.

Madam President, I come to support Senator McConnell's amendment to repeal this health care law. I listen very carefully. I listen to the people in Wyoming. The University of Wyoming conducted a survey. Sixty-eight percent of people in my home State want this law repealed. The people of Wyoming have great concerns about the unfairness of the law. Our seniors who rely on Medicare are concerned with the unfairness of a law that takes over $500 billion from them, from our seniors on Medicare, not to help Medicare, not to save Medicare, not to secure Medicare, but to start a whole new government entitlement program for someone else.

Let's look at the specific cuts to Medicare: $155 billion from hospitals; $202 billion from the 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage, and there is an advantage to Medicare Advantage. That is why so many seniors have signed up for it. Nearly $15 billion from nursing homes; another $40 billion from home health agencies; and $7 billion from hospice.

The President the other night, in his State of the Union Address, said: If you have some ideas on ways to get down the cost of care and improve care, I want to listen. Republicans have been bringing ideas to the floor during the entire year-long debate, and those ideas have been ignored and rejected. I suggest the President listen to his own Debt Commission. He appointed the Commission. They had a lengthy discussion. What the members of the Debt Commission said is that if you cut Medicare, a program designed for seniors, do not do what you did, do not do what you suggested, Mr. President, do not do what the Democrats in the Senate have suggested, do not do what Nancy Pelosi wanted. If you cut that kind of money from Medicare, the Commission says, you should use that to help and save Medicare, not start a new government entitlement.

The Commission also said that we should repeal the CLASS Act. That is a part of this health care law. It is called the CLASS Act. It has been described by Democrats as a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud because of the fact they use trickery, gimmicks to say: We will bring in money now and the big costs will not show up until 10 years from now.

I heard my distinguished colleague from West Virginia talking about small business and the tax credits. The small business owners in Wyoming looked to that. What they found is if they want to hire an additional worker, if they are at 10 or 11 workers and want to go to 12, they lose part of the credits. Do you know how much low-paying jobs have to be to get the tax credits? The average income has to be $25,000. It cannot be higher than $25,000 a year. If you want to give someone a raise, you are going to lose your tax credits.

Small business owners across the country who looked closely at this issue have said this does not help me at all. They are saying we need to make it cheaper and easier to create private sector jobs, and this health care law, with its expensive mandates and obligations, makes it more expensive and tougher to create private-sector jobs. We want this law repealed.

Just yesterday, a court in Florida ruled that this entire health care law

was unconstitutional. There has been a separate ruling in Virginia prior to the beginning of this year. I will tell you that ruling in Florida yesterday is a second stake in the heart of this health care law.

This government, this Senate, the House does not have a right to go into the homes of the people of my State of Wyoming or anywhere around the country and say to them: You must buy a product. You must purchase something. If the government can tell people they have to buy health insurance, where does it stop? That is why I am encouraged, as are Americans all across this country, when I see the ruling coming out of Florida. People inherently understand this is unconstitutional. The health care law even fails to meet the President's own promise. In Wyoming, we have a code of the West that says: If you give your word, keep it. The President promised this health care law would actually bring down the cost of care, he said by $2,500 a family. What are we seeing with insurance costs? The costs continue to go up and up and up. The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That hasn't been true either. In terms of the insurance people have, they are losing what they have, if they like it. And even though several pages of the health care law may have implied that, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services came out with over 100 pages of regulations, it was clear that if you get your insurance through work-- big company, small company--the majority of Americans will not be able to keep the health insurance they have and that they like.

A recent poll, released today, said that 58 percent of Americans would like to have this health care law repealed. The interesting thing about this was that this recent polling went further to say that when you poll people who have actually talked to a nurse or talked to a doctor or talked to a physician's assistant or an EMT or people involved in the health care area, even more of those people who have talked to a health care provider want this health care law repealed.

As Nancy Pelosi said, first you have to pass it to find out what is in it. And as more and more people become aware of what is in it, more and more people want this health care law repealed. The mandates are excessive and they are expensive, and States--with Governors of both parties--are being impacted by these huge expenses.

It is interesting. There was an article in Saturday's New York Times entitled: ``For Governors, Medicaid Looks Ripe for Slashing.'' That is Governors of both parties. Well, what is Medicaid? They are going to slash Medicaid. The article states:

Hamstrung by Federal prohibitions against lowering Medicaid

eligibility, governors from both parties are exercising their

remaining options in proposing bone-deep cuts to the program.

I have just heard other colleagues on the Senate floor talk about this huge expansion of Medicaid. That is the solution; that is the President's solution; that is the Democrats' solution; to cram more people onto Medicaid, a program initially designed for the poor, with low reimbursements rates and where over half of the doctors in the country won't see Medicaid patients. That is their solution.

I listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about coverage and talk about care and they use the words interchangeably. That is misleading to the American people. You can get a Medicaid card but that doesn't mean you can get in to see a doctor in the way that you might think. Half of the doctors don't want to see patients. Why? Because the reimbursement is so low.

The New York Times article of Saturday speaks to U.S. aid running dry and States proposing Medicaid cuts, and the first person they cite is Governor Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat, and under him, Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat of New York. What does it say? It says:

The shrinking of Medicaid programs, if approved by the

state legislatures, would come at a tenuous moment for the

Obama administration. Starting in 2014, the health care law

calls for an enormous expansion of Medicaid eligibility that

is expected to add 16 million beneficiaries by 2019.

The health care law puts in place a program that will hire IRS agents to make sure people buy health insurance, but it doesn't pay to train the doctors and the nurses needed to take care of those patients. As the article goes on, it says:

States have already cut payments to health care providers

and scaled back benefits over the last few years, so these

new proposed cuts are much more painful.

I will tell you, the people of Wyoming want this law repealed. The chairman of our health committee in our State Senate--and I served under him for 5 years when I was a member of the Wyoming State Senate-- whose name is Charles Scott, has been in the State Senate over two decades and has studied this extensively. He had an article in the Caspar Star Tribune on January 30 speaking to this.

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

Mr. President, the headline of the article is: ``Repeal of `Obamacare' Would Help Wyoming.'' I want to cite a few excerpts:

Repeal of Obamacare would help Wyoming because that law is

a disaster for our country. Our American health care system

costs too much. There are too many uninsured. Obama reform

makes these problems worse. The centerpiece of the Obama

effort to insure the uninsured is to expand the Medicaid

program, the existing program for poor people. This is the

most expensive way available to insure the uninsured.

This is from someone who has studied this for 20 years. He goes on to say:

The Medicaid program is designed to be a high-cost program.

The Federal Government has required a set of Medicaid

benefits that are richer than any insurance the rest of us

can buy. The Feds forbid most of the effective cost controls

the rest of us face. One consequence is that Medicaid clients

are free to use the hospital emergency room for things most

of us take care of at home. The health care costs for an

adult in Medicaid are one and a half times larger than for a

comparable adult insurance by our largest private insurer and

a child costs two and a half times as much.

Those are the things we are dealing with. That is the solution the Democrats have presented to the country. That is what has been passed. This solution is not a solution. What we need to do is repeal and replace this health care law.

The American people notice when month after month the Secretary of Health and Human Services rolls out more waivers for people under this health care law. Last week, she granted 500 new waivers. We now have 2.2 million Americans to whom this law does not apply. They have gotten their waivers, so it doesn't apply to them.

You might say: Who are these people? Well, they are people with friends in high places, because 166 of these are union benefit funds-- 166 entities covering 860,000 Americans. These are some of the same union members who lobbied Congress, who contributed in ways to say we need this health care law. Yet they say: Oh, once we have looked at it--followed Nancy Pelosi's idea and actually read the bill to see what was in it after it got passed--we don't want it to apply to us.

So 40 percent of all the waivers have gone to unions, even though union workers only account for 7 percent of the private workforce in this country. Well, if this health care law is so great for the country, why should companies and unions need waivers? And why can't the rest of America receive a waiver and get the same treatment?

That is why I come to the floor today, to tell my colleagues this health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and it is bad for the taxpayers. By voting to repeal this health care law, we will give these waivers to every American and give them the opportunity and the freedom they request, and the flexibility they need to get the health care that works best for them, not a one-size-fits-all approach that comes out of Washington loaded with Washington wasteful spending.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the importance of Minutemen III intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as ICBMs, and an amendment I intend to offer. The ICBM is just one leg of our nuclear triad. The nuclear triad spans sea, air, and land. It relies on mobile bombers, hard-to-detect ballistic missile submarines, and ICBMs. They all work together to complicate and deter any attempt at a successful first strike on our country. Like a stool, if you shorten just one leg too much, the stool will become unstable.

Our nuclear triad is not just a weapons system, it is a deterrent. The further we weaken our nuclear forces, the less of a deterrent our triad will become.

Those folks who believe in nuclear zero and arms control seek a world without nuclear weapons at any expense--in my opinion, never at the expense of our national security. The fact is, for over 50 years our ICBM force has deterred a nuclear attack against the United States and our allies.

Some arms control supporters claim our ICBMs are on ``hair-trigger alert.'' They believe an ICBM can be launched by simply pushing a button. This misleading claim that an unauthorized launch can destroy the world in a matter of minutes could not be further from the truth.

GEN Kevin Chilton, the outgoing commander of STRATCOM, once described our nuclear posture as:

The weapon is in the holster . . . the holster has two

combination locks on it, it takes two people to open those

locks, and they can't do it without authenticated orders from

the President of the United States.

The Minuteman III ICBM force is the most stabilizing leg of the nuclear triad.

ICBMs are strategically located and broadly dispersed in order to prevent them from successfully being attacked. The ICBMs protect the survivability of other legs of the triad as a deterrent. They offer an umbrella of protection to our most-valued allies. ICBMs also represent the most cost-effective delivery systems the United States processes. Unlike a bomber, ICBMs ensure a second attack capability.

As required by section 1251 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, earlier this year, the administration submitted its force structure plan. The President's 1251 force structure plan provides up to 420 ICBMs, 14 submarines carrying up to 240 submarine- launched ballistic missiles or SLBMs, and up to 60 nuclear-capable heavy bombers.

We are being asked to ratify this treaty without knowing what our force structure will actually be. We are being told: Pass the treaty, and then we will tell you what the force structure will actually look like.

The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review laid out our force structure in plain view, while the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review is silent on the force structure.

This report also laid out the administration's plan to modernize and maintain our nuclear delivery vehicles.

With respect to the next generation of ICBMs, the update states:

While a decision on an ICBM follow-on is not needed for

several years, preparatory analysis is needed and is in fact

now underway. This work will consider a range of deployment

options, with the objective of defining a cost-effective

approach for an ICBM follow-on that supports continued

reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while promoting stable

deterrence.

The amendment I plan to offer has no impact on the treaty. It simply requires the President to certify that further reductions in our land- based strategic nuclear deterrent will not be considered when reviewing the options for a follow-on ICBM. This is something I have worked on with Senator Conrad. He has a second-degree amendment to mine, and it is something we both support.

LTG Frank Klotz, the new commander of Global Strike Command, was quoted last year at the Air Force Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition here in Washington, DC, as saying:

Continuously on alert and deployed in 450 widely dispersed

locations, the size and characteristics of the overall

Minuteman III force presents any potential adversary with an

almost insurmountable challenge should he contemplate

attacking the United States. Because he cannot disarm the

ICBM force without nearly exhausting his own forces in the

process, and at the same time, leaving himself vulnerable to

our sea-launched ballistic missiles and bombers, he has no

incentive to strike in the first place. In this case, numbers

do matter . . . and the ICBM thus contributes immeasurably to

both deterrence and stability in a crisis.

The force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining an effective deterrent.

In 2008, Secretary Gates coauthored a white paper titled ``National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.'' This paper argued for a strong nuclear deterrent. The forward stated:

We believe the logic presented here provides a sound basis

on which this and future administrations can consider further

adjustments to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and

force structure.

The white paper by Secretary Gates recommended a U.S. strategic nuclear force baseline that includes 450 Minuteman III ICBMs, 14 Ohio class submarines, and 76 bombers, 20 B-2 and 26

B-52 bombers, for a total of 862. The administration cannot explain how the threat environment has changed since the 2008 recommendation to maintain 862 delivery vehicles. They cannot explain what has changed to allow our nuclear deterrent to be reduced to 700 delivery vehicles.

It sounds to me as if this administration has been a little too eager in negotiating the treaty.

James Woolsey, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, described his experiences negotiating with the Russians. He said:

The Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian

counterparts, don't appear eager--friendly, yes, eager,

never.

I think Mr. Woolsey would know; he was involved in the SALT I treaty in 1970 and many more arms control agreements with the Russians before he took over as the Director of Central Intelligence.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4880, a Barrasso- Enzi amendment, and then a second-degree by Senator Conrad.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

It was a privilege for me to cosponsor this piece of legislation with the distinguished Senator from Colorado. My colleague Senator Enzi and I have long been advocates of allowing an additional opportunity for jobs and for economic development into the wonderful ski areas around Rocky Mountain West, which is the intent of this bill. It really is aimed at increasing summer activities so that a number of these locations, if you will, on Forest Service land can use that land for an extended season, which would then work toward full-time, year- round employment for the folks in those areas, putting in things such as zip lines and opportunities for recreational advancements to increase the amount of tourism, the amount of visitors to these wonderful places people like to enjoy. We think additional opportunities and enhancements would allow for additional employment. That is why Senator Enzi and I joined with Senator Udall in support of his efforts on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, if you will let me know when I have used 4 of the 5 minutes I am to have.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by my friend and colleague and next-door neighbor on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as my next-door neighbor of State, Senator Risch.

I want to discuss the issue of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, also known as tactical nuclear weapons. While the United States and Russia have a rough equivalence in their strategic nuclear weapons, there is a significant imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons, and it favors Russia.

Russia currently has a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and it is expected that the number of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia will continue to grow. This imbalance directly impacts our security commitments to NATO and to our other European allies.

Mr. President, I have been to the hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of that committee, I have heard statements given by former Secretaries of State of both parties. Henry Kissinger testified before the committee and said:

The large Russian stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons,

unmatched by a comparable American deployment, could threaten

the ability to undertake extended deterrence.

Former Secretary James Schlesinger called this imbalance of Russia's tactical nuclear weapons ``the dog that did not bark.'' He called it a ``frustrating, vexatious, and increasingly worrisome issue.''

In the past, many current Members of the Senate have expressed their concerns with Russia's tactical nuclear weapons. Even Vice President Biden, when he was a Member of this body and serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, spoke about it, and he said:

We were hoping in START III to control tactical nuclear

weapons. They are the weapons that are shorter range and are

used at shorter distances, referred to as tactical nuclear

weapons.

Well, Mr. President, as I look at this and work through it, it seems that, clearly, this administration did not make tactical weapons a top arms control and nonproliferation objective in the New START treaty. The negotiators of this treaty did not make this issue a priority, and they gave in to pressure from Russia to exclude the mention of tactical nuclear weapons.

I want to point out that while the administration failed to negotiate the reduction of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the New START treaty, it did allow a legally binding limitation of U.S. missile defense, and that is, I believe, a mistake.

So I disagree with those who argue that ratifying the New START treaty is needed in order to deal with tactical nuclear weapons in the future. I believe the issue of tactical nuclear weapons should have been addressed--together with the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons--in the New START treaty. The administration lost a real opportunity by not negotiating a deal in this treaty. It is unclear what leverage will remain for us to negotiate a reduction in Russian tactical nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, the Risch amendment tries to resolve the complete failure of the administration to address Russia's advantage in tactical nuclear weapons in the New START treaty. The Risch amendment acknowledges the interrelationship between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic-range weapons, which grows as strategic warheads are reduced. The Risch amendment seeks greater transparency.

I thank the Chair.

The Risch amendment seeks greater transparency, greater accountability of tactical nuclear weapons, and the Risch amendment recognizes that tactical nuclear weapons can undermine stability.

So with that, Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 10 to 12 minutes on the START treaty.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the McCain-Barrasso amendment to the New START treaty, and I appreciate hearing all the strong and passionate support for this amendment from my colleagues on the issue of missile defense. We debated this yesterday, well into the evening, and we are going to be voting on this a little after 3 this afternoon.

I think it is important that the American people are given the opportunity to hear the implications of the New START treaty. The New START treaty significantly impacts America's national security and our nuclear deterrent. I believe this treaty places limitations on the ability of our Nation to defend itself--limitations I believe should not be in the treaty.

The preamble to the New START treaty provides an explicit link between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It also implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``the current strategic capabilities.'' Well, by specifying current strategic capabilities, the intent is clear: They are signaling that future U.S. capabilities could pose a problem. Russia does not want us to improve or to expand missile defense capabilities for the United States. For me, this is absolutely unacceptable.

The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. They claim it is simply a nonbinding concession to Russia--a nonbinding concession to Russia. Well, it is important to note that the New START treaty is not the first attempt by Russia to limit our national defense. Russia has wanted language limiting U.S. missile defense for a long time. They are looking for grounds to claim the U.S. missile defense program violates an international agreement.

Russian threats have had an impact on our own missile defense decisions in the past. This administration abandoned previous plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is evident the administration already receives considerable pressure from Russia to limit our Nation's missile defense activities. I believe the language in the treaty will only further add to that pressure and will impact U.S. decisionmaking on our own missile defense.

I wish to emphasize, again, that the United States must always remain in charge of our own missile defense capabilities, not Russia and not any other country. It is unacceptable for the United States to make any concessions on missile defense. Defending our Nation should be a top priority.

Many of my colleagues have come to the floor over and over to highlight this very point. We share a deep concern about the concessions the New START treaty provides to Russia, especially the limitations of our missile defense. There is no legitimate reason for the inclusion of limitations to our national security in this treaty. The New START treaty is just the first step in allowing greater concessions on U.S. missile defense in future agreements.

I think it is also important to point out the continual change in the story by the administration--the one they have provided this Senate regarding the inclusion of missile defense language in the treaty. Originally, the Senate was told the New START treaty would not contain anything on missile defense. Then the Senate was informed there would be no reference to missile defense other than in the preamble of the treaty but certainly no limitations. Then we found that article V of the treaty contains a limitation on the conversion of ICBM and SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense. The Senate has a treaty before it now on nuclear strategic offensive weapons with several limitations on missile defense. We are now being told not to worry about these limitations on our ability to defend ourselves in the New START treaty. The administration says: Well, it is only a statement of fact. They say: It isn't legally binding or this administration doesn't plan to use it or it is only an insignificant concession to the Russians.

I do not find any of these arguments comforting. This treaty sets a terrible precedent. The United States should not be placing any constraints on our ability to defend ourselves, no matter the type, the size or the length of time.

Significant disagreements exist between the United States and Russia on missile defense provisions in the New START treaty. Some argue it doesn't matter what Russia says about the issue. Well, I believe it is vital that we examine what Russia has said about this very matter. When two countries enter into a bilateral agreement, there needs to be an actual agreement--an agreement of what is said and an agreement of what it means. Discussing the disagreements between the two parties to the treaty is imperative, and it is part of the Senate's constitutional obligation. The two parties to this treaty--the United States and Russia--need to know how both parties will be acting and how they will both be interpreting the New START treaty. We cannot ignore the differences.

Some proponents of the treaty have argued that passing the McCain- Barrasso amendment will complicate ratification. I reject that idea. I reject the idea that the Senate's advice and consent duty is to take it or leave it. I believe the Senate's advice and consent role is either to accept the treaty or improve the treaty, and that is what this amendment does--it improves the treaty. We, as a Senate, cannot simply be a rubberstamp to treaties due to fears of fixing flaws and improving important provisions.

The Congressional Research Service published a study on the role of the Senate in the treaty process. It is titled ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of The United States Senate.'' On page 125, the study states:

Amendments are proposed changes in the actual text of the

treaty. They amount, therefore, to Senate counteroffers that

alter the original deal agreed to by the United States and

the other country.

So should the Senate agree to strike the missile defense section of the preamble, we are simply asking the Russians to accept it. The ball is in Russia's court. The Russians can either accept or reject the Senate's counteroffer. If the text of the preamble is just a nonbinding statement of fact, then Russia should not have any problem in eliminating that portion of the preamble. But if Russia does have a problem with eliminating a so-called nonbinding statement of fact and Russia is willing to jeopardize the entire treaty over it, then every Member of the Senate should be concerned about the provision's impact.

The treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials all show an attempt by Russia to limit or to constrain future U.S. missile defense capabilities. Let's take a look at the Russian unilateral statement. It shows how the Russians will act under the treaty. It states:

The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United

States of America on the reduction and limitation of

strategic offensive arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010,

can operate and be viable only if the United States of

America refrains from developing its missile defense

capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

That is the Russian unilateral statement. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' He went on:

The treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only

within the context of the levels which are now present in the

sphere of strategic defensive systems.

To me those statements seem very clear. The negotiators have given in and they have allowed limitations on our missile defense capabilities. I have no doubt that Russia will threaten to withdraw from the treaty, should the United States expand its current nuclear capabilities.

There should be no problem in removing the language in the preamble when treaty proponents believe that it has no legally binding significance.

I have been sitting here, visiting and discussing this treaty with Members on both sides. This amendment only strikes a portion of the treaty that people who support the treaty have called nonbinding, legally insignificant, and one Senator called it a throwaway provision. Then they should throw it away. This Senate can ensure that there is no limit on U.S. missile defense by simply passing the McCain-Barrasso amendment. Our missile defense is worth the effort and the time to get it right.

The McCain-Barrasso amendment significantly improves the treaty and I

urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is indeed a privilege to join my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He made mention of the six Christmases he spent away from home. Members of this body and of this Nation know that those Christmases were spent in captivity as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. I recommend to all of America his book ``Faith of my Fathers.'' I read it on a trip with Senator McCain, heading to Iraq to visit and thank our troops serving several years ago, on Thanksgiving, while we were there with the troops. We were in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and in the Anbar Province. I had a chance to meet, for the first time, a young marine who was Senator McCain's son.

As we traveled across this globe visiting our soldiers, thanking them--in Afghanistan as well--we had been to Georgia, where he was awarded and received the highest national award from the President and the people of Georgia. Senator McCain is recognized and respected worldwide for his knowledge, for his patriotism, and for his bravery. I think it is critical that we listen to him as we talk about this very important treaty.

The amendment he brings is one to strike the language in the preamble that limits our missile defense. It limits our ability as a nation to defend ourselves. I have major concerns about the Russians trying to limit current and future U.S. missile defense capabilities through the New START. I am committed to our national security and the ability of the United States to defend ourselves.

In my opinion, this treaty, signed by our President and by the Russian President on April 8, 2010, places explicit limits on U.S. missile defense.

There should be no place in a treaty with Russia for the United States to limit our ability to defend and protect our Nation.

Specifically, I believe the language in the preamble, the language in the unilateral statement by Russia the day the treaty was signed, and the language in the statements by senior Russian officials regarding missile defense--all of them show Russia intends to weaken the ability of the United States to defend ourselves.

The language in the preamble provides an explicit linkage between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons.

The preamble implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities. The treaty preamble gives Russia an opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable and needs to be removed.

Senator McCain read from the Wall Street Journal editorial or op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She pointed out several very legitimate concerns about the New START treaty that must be resolved during the ratification process.

I wish to repeat and reiterate two sentences that get to the very heart of this amendment that Senator McCain and I are bringing to you today. She stated:

. . . the Senate must make absolutely clear that in

ratifying this treaty, the U.S. is not reestablishing the

Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses.

New START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it

recognizes the ``interrelationship'' of the two.

Suppose the President of Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and the treaty. In that case, I choose missile defense.

The administration continues to claim there is no limit on missile defense and that the administration also claims the preamble is not legally binding. Well, Russia clearly disagrees and believes the opposite to be true. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble to be legally binding.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was quoted by Senator McCain on the floor. This very year he stated--and I will reiterate it--that the treaty contained a ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.''

There is a fundamental disagreement between the United States and Russia on this issue. I believe that placing constraints on future U.S. defense capabilities should not be up for debate, let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons.

It is outrageous that this administration would make any concession to Russia on our national security. I think the administration's decision to include this language was a serious mistake. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the national security of both our Nation as well as our allies.

The United States must always remain in charge of our missile defense--not Russia or any other country.

As our country continues to face threats from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder our missile defense options. With concerns over countries such as Iran and North Korea, the United States cannot take any chance on language that could weaken our missile defense capabilities. The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. Then there should be no problem in eliminating that language on missile defense in the preamble of the treaty.

That is why I am privileged to join Senator McCain in offering amendment No. 4814, and I ask my colleagues to give great thought and consideration to what the importance of this amendment is and then go on to adopt it.

I yield the floor.

Yes, Mr. President. That is exactly what I see here. The senior Senator from Massachusetts said--and this is a transcript from a few minutes ago. He said that the idea that we are going to try to take out of here is nonbinding, nonlegal, completely a throwaway statement.

Madam President, yes, I am.

Madam President, I rise today to express my views on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START. This treaty is an extremely important and serious matter. New START significantly impacts America's national security and nuclear deterrent. As a result, I believe this treaty deserves adequate time in the Senate--time to examine the issues, time to debate the many flawed provisions, and time to vote on all of the amendments offered for consideration.

The majority leader should not be piecemealing together segments of time for debate on an issue as important as nuclear arms control. The treaty should not be shortchanged and rushed through the Senate. The treaty should not be jammed together with consideration of a 1,924-page omnibus Federal spending bill. The treaty should not be considered during a lameduck session.

Consideration of the treaty will require a substantial amount of time in order to sufficiently address its many flaws. Like many of my colleagues, I plan on offering amendments, amendments designed to protect our national security. This debate concerns the national security of the United States. It is critical that the United States maintains a strong nuclear deterrent in order to defend our Nation and provide assurances to our allies. I have major concerns about the impact the New START will have on Wyoming and on national security.

While I have many issues with the New START, I want to address only a few of my major concerns this morning. First, START straitjackets the U.S. missile defense capabilities. Second, START offers no method to make sure a historically noncompliant Russia state will keep its promises. Third, the approach embodied by START is representative of an outdated and simplistic view of the U.S. position on the world stage.

To begin, I wish to specifically discuss the limitations placed on the U.S. missile defense by the New START. The treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010, places explicit limitations on U.S. missile defense. The preamble of the treaty--the preamble declares an interrelationship between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defenses that are beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities. The treaty preamble, the very preamble of the treaty, gives Russia an opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable and needs to be removed.

I offered an amendment in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to strike this language. The White House resists any attempt to amend the preamble. The administration argues it is a nonbinding concession to Russia. Russia clearly doesn't see it that same way. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble legally binding. A Russian Foreign Minister stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' The Russians have wanted this language for a long time in order to have grounds to claim that the U.S. missile defense program violates an international agreement. This type of constraining language is not unique to the preamble.

The treaty also places a legally binding limitation on missile defense in article V of the treaty. Article V prohibits the transforming of offensive strategic missile launchers into defensive strategic missile launchers. As this Nation continues to face threats from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder our missile defense options. We need to be able to defend ourselves.

Just like the preamble, the administration makes excuses as to why they have made concessions to the Russians on our missile defense. The current administration claims that they have no plans to use the missile defense options

prohibited under the new START treaty. I believe that placing any constraints on future U.S. defense capabilities should not even be up for debate, let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons.

The purpose of New START was to reduce strategic nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia, not limit the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. It is outrageous that the administration would make any concessions to Russia on our national security.

The United States must always remain in charge of our own missile defense--not Russia, not any other country. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the security of our Nation and our allies. Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and the treaty. The clear choice should always be to protect the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. I believe the administration's decision was a serious mistake.

I also have major concerns about the central limits of New START. This treaty is a one-sided agreement aimed at only reducing U.S. strategic nuclear weapons. Russia is currently below the limit for strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under the New START treaty. As a result, Russia will not have to make reductions. The United States will be the only party required to slash its forces.

Due to loopholes in the treaty counting rules, Russia could deploy more than 1,550 warheads, go above that ceiling and still be in compliance with the treaty. Russia may even be able to deploy more than 2,100 warheads under the treaty. Each deployed heavy bomber, regardless of the actual number of warheads on it, only counts as one deployed strategic warhead. If anything, the limits just tell Russia how many weapons they are allowed to add to their strategic nuclear force. Why would the administration enter into a bilateral treaty that only requires the United States to make sacrifices? This is not acceptable.

New START offers us nothing in return, not even a robust verification mechanism that enables us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises. President Ronald Reagan regularly repeated the phrase ``trust, but verify.'' He did it repeatedly regarding nuclear weapons. The verification measures play an important role in analyzing the New START. The New START has a weak verification regime.

Former Secretary of State James Baker made the exact point by indicating the New START verification procedure provisions, he said, were weaker than the original New START. Under New START, the U.S. would be limited to 18 inspections per year as opposed to 28 in the past. Under the original START treaty the United States conducted approximately 600 inspections. Under New START the United States is limited to a maximum of 180 inspections. This further plays into Russia's favor due to there being 35 Russian facilities compared to only 17 U.S. facilities to inspect.

The administration also dropped two key provisions from New START. The United States will no longer have continuous monitoring at the Russian nuclear missile assembly plant. We had it in START I. Why are we giving up this important verification component in New START? The United States also will not have full access to Russian nuclear ballistic missile launch telemetry under New START. Under START I we had unrestricted access. Why are we giving that up?

The treaty does not provide us with the verification mechanisms that enable us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises. Instead, there is a lot of trust and precious little verification.

A weaker verification system is even more dangerous due to Russia's long history of noncompliance on arms control treaties. Russia has a record of noncompliance and violations under the original START treaty. Up until the end of the original START treaty in December of 2009, Russia was continuing to engage in compliance violations. The Department of State compliance reports from 2010 spell out the numerous violations made by the Russians.

Finally, the treaty relies on the false premise that Russia is America's only nuclear rival. This view of the world is outdated and simplistic. Even if we could trust Russia there are numerous other threats such as North Korea and Iran which have repeatedly shown hostility to the United States and to our allies. We should never abandon our defenses and sacrifice our deterrent in the face of increasing international belligerence. It is the equivalent of asking America to stare down the barrel of a gun without knowing whether the gun is loaded, and then to trust the person holding it not to pull the trigger.

In arguing for this treaty the administration has tried to have it both ways. The treaty demands the United States reduce our nuclear strike force by specific numbers. Yet the administration has only offered a vague range of estimates regarding where these cuts would take place. The President's force structure plan provides up to 420 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 submarines carrying up to 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and up to 60 nuclear-capable levee bombers.

Even if the administration did cut the absolute maximum number of weapons it has proposed to cut, it would still fail to live up to the reductions demanded by New START. Instead of giving the Senate a specific force structure, the President is repeating his health care playbook and telling us to wait until after the United States ratifies the treaty to find out the details.

It is wrong that the Senate is considering approving this treaty without knowing these details, and these details matter.

The force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining an effective deterrent. The nuclear triad of the United States spans sea, air, and land. By working together, our nuclear triad complicates and deters any attempt at a successful first strike by anyone on our country. I believe the President's force structure proposal will weaken our nuclear triad.

The American people deserve a full debate on the Senate floor on a treaty of this magnitude. It is my hope that the Senate will take its constitutional responsibility very seriously and provide the New START with the scrutiny it deserves.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the Chairman knows, Senator Johanns of Nebraska has proposed a Republican alternative on this issue. Would the Senator amend his request to substitute the Johanns language?

Mr. President, I object.

I thank the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues.

As Members of this body know, for the past 9 months I have come to the floor every week to offer a doctor's second opinion on the new health care law. I do this as someone who has practiced medicine, taken care of families around the State of Wyoming for a quarter of a century.

Each week I repeatedly criticize another one of the unintended consequences of this health care law, a law that I think is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers.

Americans heard how this law breaks most of the President's promises about health care reform. That is why, on election day, Americans across our country spoke out. They called on Washington to work to repeal and replace this law. The Republicans have answered. We realize we cannot just object to the law, we must do our best to repeal and replace it. That is why I am delighted this morning to be joined on the floor by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. He is joining me to talk about his new bill that he is introducing today that will allow State officials to challenge Federal regulations before these regulations actually go into effect. This will allow States to fight back against outrageous health care regulations that continue to be written.

With that, I would like to ask my colleague if he would please share with the body and with the country the remarkable bill that he is introducing today.

Well, I am very impressed by what the Senator have come up with. This leadership position takes that next step forward to protect our rights that he and I believe are in the Constitution and apply to the people of our States and apply to the people of this country.

One would hope everyone would join in, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

The Senator mentioned the unelected bureaucrats in our comments. There was a story today in the New York Times. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Senator from that story because I think it gets to the point he is making. This was by Eric Lichtblau and Robert Pear.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this story from today's New York Times.

It talks about Federal rulemakers. That is whom I believe we are talking about, these unelected bureaucrats.

Federal rule makers, long the neglected stepchildren of

Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find themselves at the

center of power--

The bureaucrats--

as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping

financial and health care regulations that will ultimately

affect most Americans.

We are talking about not just the health care law but also the financial regulations.

The one part I want to ask the Senator about says:

But the laws were so broad and complex that executive-

branch regulators will have wide leeway in determining what

the rules should say and how they should be carried out.

Well, isn't that why we need this piece of legislation--to let the States get in there before some of these rules and regulations are put onto the people of Mississippi, the people of Wyoming, the people all across the country?

Well, it is astonishing. I know the people of Wyoming as well as the people of Mississippi always oppose Washington's wasteful spending, but when I read that the health care officials are leasing more than 70,000 square feet of space on three floors of this office building in Bethesda for 230 employees, rushing to rulemaking, and see that the government--Washington--agreed to pay over $51 per usable square foot, compared with the average of less than $30 a square foot in Bethesda--why? Because it wanted to get the operation running in July. They were rushing to get to this.

But it says that this may only be the beginning. This may only be the beginning. A recent report--not by my colleague from Mississippi and not by me but by the Congressional Research Service--says that the publication of rules under the health care law could stretch out for decades to come.

That is why I am going to cosponsor this legislation. I have great concern about States rights and individual rights being trampled on by a Washington government that is out of control in terms of spending, and it is doing it in spite of the cries of the American people.

So I congratulate and compliment my colleague from Mississippi for bringing this piece of legislation to the Senate today and thank him for joining me on the floor as part of a doctor's second opinion because you don't have to be a doctor to know that this health care law is not good for patients, it is not good for providers, it is not good for taxpayers. As more and more people see the rules and the regulations come, they will once again see the broken promises by this President, who said: If you like your health care program, you get to keep it, and then they turn 2 pages in the rules and regulations into 121 pages which said, for many people in this country, they are not going to be able to keep what they have, they are not going to be able to keep what has been promised them, and it is because the rules and the regulations are so complicated. And the rulemaking continues.

With that, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his vision and his foresight and his leadership because this is, I believe, how the Founding Fathers would have seen it. I believe those who wrote the Constitution would be on board with this piece of legislation to say, as the 10th amendment does say, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman.) The clerk will call the roll.