Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to speak today because I have tremendous concerns about the potential effects of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, concerns about the destruction of jobs and concerns about the cost to our economy.

The Waxman-Markey bill may create some green jobs. If it does, great. We need green jobs in my State. We need green jobs all across the country. In

Wyoming, we are developing our wind resources, so we need the green jobs, and Wyoming has world class winds. But to me, this bill also costs jobs. And Americans want all jobs, not just some jobs. People don't want to lose the jobs they have with a promise that they may get a green job in exchange someday down the line. Americans want all the jobs. They want to keep the ones they have, and they want to create more jobs, more opportunities. To me, the Waxman-Markey bill fails to do that.

The administration says that the Waxman-Markey bill will create millions--millions--of new jobs. This administration also promised that after Congress passed the so-called ``economic stimulus package'' they would create or save 3\1/2\ million jobs. Since the bill's passage and being signed into law, unemployment has reached 9.5 percent in this Nation. Last month, almost half a million people lost their jobs.

The administration's economic experts said that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if the stimulus package passed. It passed, and was signed into law, but they were wrong. And not just by a little.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Vice President Biden acknowledged that administration officials were too optimistic when they predicted that unemployment rates would peak at 8 percent. The Vice President said that ``the administration and I misread the economy.''

Well, is it possible, then, that the administration is misreading the economic predictions of millions of new jobs being created in this bill? The administration failed to make the grade on the $787 billion stimulus package, and I believe the administration is failing again by supporting this misguided climate change bill.

It is a fact that the climate change legislation will cost jobs in the American economy. That is why there is language in the bill to retrain workers who lose their jobs. Why will this legislation cost jobs? The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is designed to make fossil fuel more expensive. Advocates say we must make fossil fuel more expensive to change the behavior of businesses and of consumers. That means making everything that is powered by fossil fuel more expensive. Fossil fuel powers your car, your home, your office; it powers the airplanes we fly in, the trains we ride in, trucks; things that we use for our own transportation but also things where we ship goods from farms and small businesses to the marketplace all across this country and even abroad.

All these things will be made more expensive because of the climate change bill that passed the House. When you increase the cost of bringing goods and services to the marketplace, especially in a recession, it becomes a recipe for economic disaster. It leads to lost jobs and lost economic opportunities. We can't afford in this country to lose more jobs.

By deciding to pass Waxman-Markey, the majority will increase the cost of doing business. The legislation will increase the cost for every small business. The legislation will force them to pay more for everything that uses energy. Those costs will put businesses in debt or even out of business. Jobs will be lost and unemployment will continue to climb.

The administration talks about creating green jobs. Well, we certainly want those jobs, but we also want the red-white-and-blue jobs that have powered America for centuries. There was a Washington Post article on July 21 entitled ``U.S. Green Jobs Seen Taking Years of Planning.'' Let me emphasize the word ``years.'' The article mentions upfront that:

Alternative energy jobs can provide vocations across many

sectors of the economy, but policy to spark them can take

years to develop.

Not now, not 6 months from now, not a year from now, but years into the future. Promises of immediate green jobs being created across the country because of this Waxman-Markey bill are another misreading by this administration. The economic stimulus package was simply the first thing the President misread. Those jobs never materialized. The green jobs promised in Waxman-Markey may also take years to develop. However, the job losses that the bill creates will occur immediately.

In an Investors Business Daily editorial on July 17 entitled ``Following California Off a Green Cliff,'' the editor states that:

America remains the richest country on Earth, but it might

profit from adopting a bit of the attitude displayed by much

poorer but up-and-coming economic rivals such as China and

India. Those nations don't take prosperity for granted. That

is why they aren't such good sports on global warming. They

prefer to get rich and then go green.

The author goes on to say:

The U.S. isn't so poor that it can't afford strong

environmental policies. But it can't afford to take its

prosperity for granted either.

Let me repeat a couple of lines from those quotes: First, that America remains the richest country on Earth. And that last line: But it can't afford--that is we, the United States--to take our prosperity for granted. We here in Congress--the Members of this Congress--cannot afford to take the prosperity of this Nation for granted. If we pass Waxman-Markey, or a bill similar to it, that prosperity will erode further. We should create jobs, and we should create more wealth in this country. We need to keep business costs low so businesses can expand and create wealth for our Nation. We can do that by making America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices for the businesses and the families of America.

Our end goal must be to do everything we can to keep the jobs we have now and also to find ways to add new green jobs. Americans want all of these jobs and more. We need them all.

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

Mr. President, an American's success can be measured in large part on how he or she helps others. This year, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming have selected as their Man of the Year someone who has made his life's mission serving others. There is a very special person who has given voice to so many important causes in our State, and today I am proud to note this recognition of one of Wyoming's great citizens--Bob Price.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming plays a vitally important role in our State. They serve all youth regardless of economic circumstances. They continue to expand thanks to the generous support of the Tate Foundation, the McMurry Foundation, and the city of Casper. Their inspiration and work has spread to adjacent counties. What is exceptional about the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming is their dedicated and loyal volunteer base. Their Person of the Year, Robert Dallas Price, takes service to his community to a new level.

Bob Price grew up in Chicago and graduated from the College of Great Falls, MT. He started his successful business career in Casper, WY, climbing through the ranks at KTWO Radio and Television to become general manager. He chose to forgo television in favor of focusing on his radio ventures and soon became vice president of GapWest Broadcasting--growing his family of radio stations to include six others. It is hard to imagine that anyone in Wyoming does not recognize the radio voice of Bob Price.

While Mr. Price has shown his exceptional achievement as a businessman in the operation and management of radio stations across Wyoming, he has truly gained success through his hands-on involvement with local civic groups that work to make a difference in our great State.

When Bob saw a community need, he worked to see that it was addressed. From Bob's vision over 25 years ago, the Wyoming Health Fairs were created. Now, the Health Fairs serve over 51,000 people yearly in nearly every Wyoming community. By keeping costs low, the Health Fairs facilitate participants' active involvement in prevention and early detection. Their motto, ``helping you help yourself . . . be well'' is a model our entire Nation would be wise to follow.

Another important tradition in our lives also traces its roots back to Bob Price. The Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Telethon is a Labor Day tradition for families all across America. Bob knew that Wyoming families would want to help too. He started Wyoming's MDA Telethon in 1977 and to this day we all look forward to sharing our Labor Day weekend in support of this worthwhile organization.

Hardly a week goes by without Bob doing something to help others. He has worked on behalf of the Youth Baseball League and Stage III Community Theater productions. He has dedicated years of service on the boards of successful organizations like the Wyoming Symphony Orchestra, Central Wyoming Counseling Center, and Natrona County United Way, just to name a few. He launched the Beartrap Music Festival on Casper Mountain 15 years ago, and his behind-the-scenes work ensures the event keeps growing. He has lent his presence and voice to serve as emcee for countless special events like the Wyoming Sports Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony and Make-a-Wish campaigns.

Bob's willingness to reach out to so many different groups is a constant reminder of his personal dedication to the value of community involvement. Through his engagement, Bob Price has driven our community toward success and drawn our people together. His is a voice that we from Wyoming know and trust, and he has a spirit of service that inspires. The people of Wyoming today, as well as generations to come, will feel the impact of his generous and selfless contributions to his community and our world.

Mr. President, I am so proud to call Bob Price my friend. My life has been enriched because of our friendship. It is fitting and terrific that the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming have named him Man of the Year, and I ask that my colleagues join me in sending our congratulations to Bob for this well-deserved honor.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Thune amendment. The Thune amendment to me is very straightforward. It does not preempt State concealed carry laws, it does not create a Federal concealed carry permit. It simply allows law-abiding individuals, law- abiding individuals to lawfully carry concealed firearms across State lines while following the laws of the host State.

Just like a driver's license--this is my Wyoming driver's license-- just like a driver's license, the Thune amendment is a license for self-defense across State lines. It means with this license--my concealed carry license from Wyoming--I will not be limited to Wyoming. Just like a regular driver's license, just about the same photo, identification issues, and the only difference is this one from Wyoming says ``concealed firearm permit.'' It has on it a picture of a handgun.

Well, today we are hearing the same arguments against the Thune amendment that we heard from the people who wanted to ban assault weapons. During that semiautomatic assault weapons debate, we heard all of the scare tactics. We heard: There will be blood all over the streets. Terrorists will be able to purchase Uzis and AK-47s. Our cities will turn into the Wild West. The lives of law enforcement will be in danger.

This is simply not the case. A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed.

The National Institute of Justice conducted a survey that found that 74 percent of criminals who had committed burglaries or violent crimes said they would be less likely to commit a crime if they thought the victim would be armed.

In States where concealed carry permits are issued, it is a fact that the crime rates go down. Let's take a look at Illinois and Florida. Illinois does not allow concealed carry permits. The number of murders last year in Chicago, 511.

Since Florida passed their concealed carry bill and signed it into law, violent crime has dropped by 32 percent, and murders in Florida dropped 58 percent.

Criminals do not get licensed to carry guns. Criminals do not fill out the paperwork, go to the courthouse, get fingerprinted, and wait weeks to receive their concealed carry permit. Criminals issue their own concealed carry permits.

In the District of Columbia, crime rates are high because the criminals have the advantage over the victims. The gun laws in the District outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense while people walk home from work or from the store. They know it is highly unlikely in the District of Columbia that the victims will be carrying a gun for self-defense.

This is a commonsense amendment. It makes sense for law-abiding gun owners all across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Thune amendment.

Mr. President, the word ``hero'' is used often and lightly these days. Yet there are those special people that walk among us in our hometowns across America who genuinely rate that title. The terrible days of the Second World War produced an entire generation of such people. Today they are our friends and neighbors. They endured great trials and gave so much of themselves for so many of us in the most difficult of circumstances. They served in our nation's darkest hour. And then they came home. They went back to work, to school, bought homes, and raised families. Many did not care to speak about what they had seen or suffered through. I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate today to honor one such individual.

Mr. President, on April 9, 1942, American and Filipino forces defending the peninsula of Bataan from the invasion of Imperial Japan ended a gallant holding action to prevent the Japanese conquest of the Philippines. The soldiers lacked supplies and air support, and were crippled by starvation and disease when they were finally overwhelmed on that fateful day. What would follow the surrender would go down as one of the most brutal and ghastly chapters written in human history.

More than 75,000 men, including nearly 12,000 Americans, were turned out onto a broken, dusty road and forced to march nearly 70 miles to the dreadful prison camp, Camp O'Donnell, that would be their home until the war's end. The journey was barbarous. Over the next 5 days, thousands died from starvation, dehydration, disease, heat prostration, and sheer exhaustion. Survivors of the Death March of Bataan tell of the horrific atrocities of their captors. Prisoners were beaten at random and denied food and water. Those who fell behind or stopped to help fallen comrades were executed. One survivor tells the story of Japanese soldiers driving alongside the column of weary men with outstretched bayonets, slicing throats and decapitating those poor souls who happened to get in the way. The sides of the trail were littered with the bodies of the dead. There are no words that can describe such horrendous barbarity and inhumanity. It is estimated that 54,000 of the 75,000 who started the march made it to Camp O'Donnell--a death rate of about 1 in 4. Many more would meet their deaths at the Camp. But there were also those who made it.

A hero is someone who displays courage, bravery, and perseverance in the face of great adversity. Those who survived the Bataan Death March exhibited a heroism that we rarely see today. One of those heroes is from my hometown of Casper, WY, the Reverend Leonard L. Robinson. Leonard is my friend and neighbor. In fact, I had the privilege as a surgeon to replace both of his knees.

Leonard L. Robinson was born in Englewood, CO, and spent his youth growing up in the Englewood and Denver area. While attending college at the University of Colorado, Leonard was drafted to the U.S. Army in 1941. He was assigned to Battery E of the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment, Anti-Aircraft, at Fort Bliss, TX. In September 1941, he was shipped out to Fort Stotsenburg in the Philippines. Leonard was in the first group of U.S. soldiers captured at Cabcaben and started the march out of Bataan towards Camp O'Donnell. He was then held as a Japanese prisoner of war for 3\1/2\ years; 2 of

those years were spent as a forgotten slave on the docks of Niigata. At the war's end, he returned to Fort Logan, CO, where he was discharged from the U.S. Army.

Upon his discharge in 1946, Leonard returned to school on the G.I. bill and earned his bachelor of science in architectural engineering from the University of Colorado. He then attended Northwestern Seminary in Minneapolis, where he earned his bachelor of theology. He later earned his master's and doctorate in theology from Pioneer Seminary in Rockford, IL. Throughout his years as an ordained pastor, he served in Wyoming, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Colorado before returning back to Wyoming. He has served as Chaplain for military, law enforcement and veterans groups. Leonard and his wife Erma enjoyed 53 years together and they were blessed with three children, Paula Chelewski, Len Robinson, and Pamela Robinson, as well as two grandchildren. His beloved Erma passed away in 2005. Mr. President, the life example of Rev. Leonard Robinson has taught so many to appreciate and be thankful for the blessings of life.

This week, all the eyes of Wyoming will be on Cheyenne as we kick off the annual Daddy of 'Em All, Cheyenne Frontier Days. And I am proud to announce that Wyoming will honor Leonard as he leads the Cheyenne Frontier Days Parade on Tuesday, July 21, as its grand marshal. It is but a small tribute to this brave man who sacrificed and suffered so much for our country, for you and for me.

My father was a veteran of World War II. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge. My wife Bobbi's father was in both World War II and Korea. My dad always told me that I should thank God every day that I was born in America and how fortunate I was. He was right. This is the greatest country on Earth. And it is because of the sacrifices made by men like Rev. Leonard Robinson. I was so honored to greet him and his fellow veterans on the National Mall this spring when they made the Wyoming Honor Flight trip to Washington to visit the World War II Memorial. He is a hero in every sense of the word. Leonard, thank you my friend. All of Wyoming, and indeed America, is proud of you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business and that Senator Sessions be recognized when I have finished.

Madam President, most everybody knows I am an orthopedic surgeon. In Wyoming, many refer to me as ``Wyoming's doctor.'' That is because for over two decades folks have invited me into their home with statewide television and radio health reports, where I gave people information on how they can stay healthy and how to keep down the cost of their medical care. I ended each report by saying: ``Here in Wyoming, I'm Dr. John Barrasso, helping you care for yourself.''

That is also my philosophy for government--helping people help themselves. As medical director of the Wyoming Health Fairs, I worked to give people around the Cowboy State access to lifesaving preventive tests and low-cost medical screenings.

My goal was always to encourage families to eat right, exercise, manage chronic diseases, and stop smoking because prevention is one of the keys to a long and happy and healthy life.

As I travel home every weekend, I hear the concerns people have about health care and the cost of their medical care. They are concerned about the specific cost of their medical care and how it affects them and their family budgets. Many families across Wyoming and in this country worry that they will lose the health care coverage they currently have. Others cannot afford insurance today. That is what is wrong with our current health care system. That is what we need to fix.

I know from firsthand experience that doing nothing is simply not an option. We must be careful, thoughtful, and deliberate about the changes we make. Health care is a very complex and an intensely personal issue. It deserves a national debate--a serious, open, and transparent national debate.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about the concerns of people living longer and needing more care and more advanced care. The concerns are affordable care, access to care, and high-quality care.

In the midst of this debate, we cannot stand for rural Americans to be left behind. They need access to high-quality, affordable health care like everybody else.

When I first came to the Senate, I promised the people of Wyoming I would fight each and every day to protect and modernize our rural health care delivery system. I committed to do my part to strengthen our rural hospitals, rural health clinics, and community health centers. I committed to do my part to increase rural America's access to primary health care services and to aid in the successful recruitment and retention of nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors, and physician assistants all across rural and frontier America.

There are obstacles faced by our hospitals, clinics, and our providers--obstacles they have to overcome to deliver quality care to all the families in rural America. They end up having to do it in an environment of markedly limited resources. The Federal Government needs to recognize these important differences and then respond with appropriate policy.

The people of Wyoming know I am here not just as their Senator but also as a rural doctor who has practiced medicine, fighting on their behalf.

Recently, I joined three of my colleagues to introduce S. 1157, the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act.

Today, I rise to talk about a different bill that I have introduced alongside my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden. It is called the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act.

This legislation is a great example of what true bipartisanship can produce. I thank Senator Wyden and his staff for working so hard to collaborate with me on this very important bill. I commend him for his dedication to helping rural Americans have equal access to the high- quality medical care they deserve.

This legislation strengthens America's 3,500 rural health clinics that serve rural and frontier communities.

Rural health clinics are a highly valued medical provider in communities all across this country. In Wyoming, we have rural health clinics located in communities that many people have never heard of, such as Baggs, Glenrock, Hulett, Lovell, Medicine Bow, Saratoga, and my wife Bobbie's hometown of Thermopolis. These clinics make sure people have access to primary care as close to home as possible. That is not easy to.

To give you a snapshot of Wyoming's health care landscape, we have only 26

hospitals and 18 rural health clinics spread over nearly 100,000 square miles, which is a remarkably large distance. With vast distances, complex medical cases, and increased demand for technologically advanced medical care, the rural health care system is certainly not one size fits all.

Let me explain what this Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act actually does.

First, the rural health clinics currently receive an all-inclusive payment rate that is capped at $76. That payment has not been adjusted--except for inflation--since 1988. We all know that medical inflation has gone up at a much greater rate than regular inflation.

This bill addresses this problem by raising the rural health clinic cap from $76 to $92. Rural health clinics are a key component of the rural health care delivery system, and we need to make sure there is fair pay for patients who are taken care of in those facilities.

We also need to give them enough flexibility to meet their community's health care needs.

Additionally, this measure would establish a new quality reporting program for rural health clinics.

Three years ago, Congress required the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to create a physician quality reporting system. This program offers bonus payments to doctors who report quality measures on Medicare services.

The quality incentive program is linked to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Rural health clinics, though, are not paid using the physician fee schedule. If Congress wants to pay doctors based not on volume but on the quality of care, then it is important to remember that the one-size-fits-all approach will not work here.

That is why this bill ensures that a comparable quality incentive is available to rural health care providers.

Third, the Rural Health Clinic Patient Access and Improvement Act would create a provider retention demonstration project. It is a five- State project that will study the extent to which a medical professional can be encouraged and enticed to practice in an underserved rural and frontier area.

The States would be given grants to help physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives to help them pay a small portion of their medical liability costs.

I believe these incentives will help draw more providers--especially those who deliver babies--to work in an underserved area because their malpractice insurance is the same whether they deliver 1 baby or 100. In these small areas, there aren't that many babies being born each year, so the cost, while it is the same for malpractice insurance, has to be distributed over a fewer number of patients. This will encourage them to practice in underserved areas.

Wyoming has too few primary care providers for the population we must serve. My State is not alone. This bill that Senator Wyden and I have introduced reflects our commitment to ensure rural Americans have access to high-quality health care services.

I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this bipartisan piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, when it comes to health care, Democrats and Republicans all agree that we need and we want health care reform. Having practiced medicine for over two decades in Wyoming, I know that doing nothing is simply not an option. But let me tell you from experience that the devil is always in the details. We must be careful, we must be thoughtful, and we must be deliberate about the changes we make.

Health care is a very complex and intensely personal issue. It deserves a serious, open, and transparent national debate. Any changes Congress makes are going to impact millions and millions of American families. These are people of our Nation; these are not nameless or faceless statistics; these are husbands, mothers, neighbors; these are our wives, our friends, and our coworkers; these Americans are our children--the Nation's most precious resources.

We must act, but still at issue is whether Congress will act without sacrificing our health care system's greatest strengths. And what are those strengths? The freedom to choose your own doctor, the freedom to choose the hospital you want, and the freedom to choose the health care plan that fits you and fits your family's needs.

I travel home to Wyoming every weekend. I was there yesterday. One of the top issues I hear about is health care. The people of Wyoming are concerned about the cost of their health care. Many families worry they will lose the health care coverage they currently have. Still others can't afford health insurance at all. This is what is wrong with the current health care system. This is what we need to fix. Wyoming families want to purchase health insurance coverage at an affordable price. They do not want to be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. They do not want to lose coverage if they change jobs. But most of all, these families do not want Washington telling them--do not want Washington telling them--whom they have to see for their medical care. Everyone should have the freedom to choose the doctor, the hospital, and the health care plan they want. No Washington bureaucrat should ever be allowed to deny that right.

Some in Congress continue focusing solely on government solutions. They want Washington, in its enduring wisdom, to take over health care. Some in Congress want to create a government-run health care plan. Their plan creates a government-run insurance model that could limit patient choice, eliminate personal freedoms, and decrease the quality of care. What starts out as one option could quickly lead to being the only option.

We all know how this happens. Unlike regular health insurance, government health plans have unlimited access to taxpayer money. They can use the money to temporarily subsidize the cost of services, but ultimately someone must pay for the care.

According to the Lewin Group, 119 million Americans would lose the private coverage they currently have if we have a government-run system. I know some in the Senate and the administration keep saying: If you like your insurance coverage, you will get to keep it. The Lewin Group's data proves otherwise. Their study shows that businesses will face a situation where it is cheaper for them to insure their employees through the government-run plan, so employers will then transfer their workers from the private insurance that they currently have--and that they may like--to this new Washington-run government plan. So where is the personal choice? At this point, the individual has no option. The government-run plan is their option, it is their plan, unless that person changes jobs to an employer who is willing or can afford to offer private coverage. So what happened to the ``If I like my health insurance plan offered by my employer, I will be able to keep it''? Well, that promise is out the window.

Some say we can create safeguards that will ensure a level playing field between private insurance and a government-run plan. Well, as a doctor, I can tell you from personal experience that the government will never, ever compete on a level playing field with private business. Washington will never let its health care plan go bankrupt. Never. It will lose money, it will hide costs, and ultimately taxpayers will pay the difference. Private plans will not enjoy this same kind of support. That is exactly how the heavy hand of government can drive out competition.

So how does government compete with private business? Well, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana summed it up pretty well. He said: ``The government competes with private business the way an alligator competes with a duck.''

Supporters of the government-run Washington takeover of health care say the plan will keep costs low. How? By paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, home health agencies, hospice providers, and long-term care facilities less than private insurers pay. This should sound familiar. This is what already happens with Medicare and Medicaid. Any participating Medicare or Medicaid provider will tell you that today, right now, doctors and hospitals have to shift costs onto private insurers just to keep their doors open. The cost shift is to make up the difference between what a procedure costs and what the government is willing to pay for it. That is what they call cost shifting. We see it every day.

A government-run plan will not encourage competition; it will take away your access to private health insurance. The private plans millions of Americans have today--the program they like, the one they want to keep--will be gone. The only choice remaining will be the government plan.

So what does this all mean to someone who is listening in--to the patient? Well, it means politicians will be making health care decisions, not patients making those decisions with their doctors. It means Washington bureaucrats will be deciding whether you can have the hip or the knee procedure you need. It means the government will be saying you cannot have lifesaving medical treatment because it is too expensive or because you are too old. It means Washington will be restricting your and your child's access to the most advanced medical testing equipment. It means testing delays, it means diagnosis delays, and it means treatment delays. Delayed care is denied care, and we do not want that in America.

Take a close look at what is going on in Canada right now. Last year, in Calgary, ophthalmologists--eye doctors--had no waiting lists for people needing cataract surgery. Then Alberta's cash-strapped government made a decision to arbitrarily lower the number of cataract operations it would pay for. They arbitrarily said: We are going to pay for 2,000 fewer cataract operations this year in Alberta than we did last year. So what did that mean for the people there? Well, many patients now have to wait a year for treatment--a year. Why? Well, the cutbacks forced surgeons to cancel all of the operations they had scheduled on people with moderately severe cataract conditions. So now they only book the most severe cases. Ophthalmologists are now concentrating their efforts only on the patients who are about to go blind--not the people who have a hard time seeing, the people about to go blind.

Patients living in Alberta have to almost be going blind to get cataract

surgery. Is that the kind of medical care we want for Americans? Absolutely not. America should strive to offer its citizens the highest quality, most timely health care services in the world. That means Americans should not have to wait weeks at a time for tests and treatments they need. It means no one should be denied health care services because of government limits or government restrictions. It means no government bureaucrat should interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.

Currently, the Senate HELP Committee has been debating a reform plan that has been put forth by Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told us--first, it told us the Kennedy-Dodd plan increases spending by more than $1.3 trillion in the first 10 years. Once it is fully operational, the 10-year fee would be closer to $2.6 trillion. The number was staggering. People cried ``sticker shock.'' What did they do? They tweaked it around a little bit and came out with a new estimate.

They are just guessing. Even more disturbing is the plan is incomplete. The Congressional Budget Office still has additional policies to score to come up with a pricetag. Clearly, this estimate does not reflect the bill's true cost because they left out Medicaid, something they have been forcing onto the States, and Governors all around the country have been crushed by these Medicaid-increased fees and increased expenses.

Ten years and trillions of dollars later, the Congressional Budget Office also tells us this plan only reduces the number of people who do not have insurance by 17 million. That leaves over 30 million Americans still without health insurance, and they are spending $1 trillion.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office indicates that about 15 million people would actually lose the insurance they have now, be forced off of their employer-paid-for insurance under this trillion- dollar plan.

To me, this Kennedy-Dodd plan suffers from what I call the three Cs: it costs too much, it covers too few, and it causes too many people who already have insurance to lose the coverage they have.

Some in Congress believe unless we completely dismantle the current health care system and build it up in the image of big government, then reform, they say, is simply not worth doing. I disagree. Americans do not want the same government bureaucracy that has given us the Department of Motor Vehicles controlling our medical decisions. Americans don't want increased bureaucratic hassles, we don't want long waits, and we don't want restrictions on our medical care.

What we need is a serious, transparent health care debate. That is what Americans want. They want us to listen to their ideas, their concerns, their suggestions. The only way they can give us their ideas, concerns, and specifically their suggestions about a health care bill is if they actually get to read the bill.

Whether we should reform our health care system is no longer in question. Americans have answered with a resounding yes, and they don't want to continue to wait. They want simple, practical, affordable changes now: Changes such as prohibiting the use of preexisting condition clauses, changes such as allowing people to take their health insurance with them when they switch jobs. Madam President, you have a young family; I have a young family. Our children are going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of their lifetimes. They will need to take their insurance with them. We need to have changes such as offering premium breaks for making healthy lifestyle choices, changes such as having the same tax breaks for people who buy their own insurance as big companies get when they pay for insurance for their employees--we need families to have those same tax breaks. We need changes such as allowing people to shop across State lines to look for better deals, keeping their costs down.

I want to continue to come forward with commonsense ideas. I want the majority in Congress to work with me and with members of my party on a bipartisan health reform plan. That is the need. That is the need the country is expecting us to address. That is what I would like to do. We cannot simply put government in charge of health care and put bureaucrats in between patients and their doctors.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the town of Medicine Bow, WY. The town eventually became the setting for the classic Western novel by Owen Wister, ``The Virginian.''

Medicine Bow's history began decades before its incorporation on June 26, 1909. The town's name originates from the mountains surrounding the area. American Indians would annually travel to the foot of the Medicine Bow Mountains to obtain wood that was excellent for arrows. According to the Native Americans, anything that is perfect for the purpose for which it is intended is called ``good medicine.''

The Union Pacific Railroad routed tracks through the valley because the Medicine Bow River was an ideal place for a pumping station. Steam engines would pause to take on a load of water before roaring across the prairie to the east or over the mountains to the west. The railroad not only produced what is now known as the town of Medicine Bow, but it also created economic opportunities. Wyoming's booming cattle industry necessitated stock yards in Medicine Bow. The town became an important shipping center for cattle headed to the eastern market and a great place for cowboys to congregate after gathering their herds.

The wood in the Medicine Bow forest was excellent not only for arrows but also for railroad ties. Every year, tie hacks cut hundreds of thousands of railroad ties and mining props from the mountains at the head of the river. The material was then floated down to a river boom, a mile from the Medicine Bow Station. These ties were pulled from the river and shipped to supply America's swiftly expanding railroad network.

The tie hacks and the cowboys played a vital role in the development of Medicine Bow's untamed reputation. It was this reputation as one of the West's wildest towns that brought famous novelist Owen Wister to Medicine Bow. Following his stay in Medicine Bow, Wister authored the classic Western novel, ``The Virginian.'' In his novel, he mirrored more than just the setting of the town. His plot was a fictionalized story about the Johnson

County War in Wyoming, told from the cattle barons' point of view. Even Wister's famous line from the novel was not original. The phrase, ``When you look at me smile,'' came from a local man named William Hines. His novel brought fame and recognition to Wyoming's culture and history. In 1913 the Virginian Hotel was built by August Grimm and named after Wister's novel. To this day, visitors from all over the world enjoy a nice meal and a comfortable night's sleep at the Virginian.

The area surrounding Medicine Bow has long been host to several energy industries. Coal and uranium mines brought jobs to the area. Presently, wind turbines secure Medicine Bow's future and contribution to the America's energy market. Without a major interstate nearby, the Medicine Bow Valley has been able to secure and maintain its majestic western roots. Modernization may sweep through, but valleys like the Medicine Bow remind us of the Old West legacy.

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the town of Medicine Bow, I invite my colleagues to visit this historic place. I congratulate the citizens of Medicine Bow who steward this important piece of Wyoming's history and present it to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 175th anniversary of the founding of Fort Laramie, the first permanent settlement in what would become the State of Wyoming.

In the spring of 1834, William Sublette led a supply caravan to the annual fur trappers' rendezvous held on the Ham's Fork of the Green River. On May 30, 1834, Sublette and his men paused to camp at the confluence of the Laramie and North Platte Rivers. It was here that Sublette and his partner, Robert Campbell, agreed to build a new trading post. Their intent was to dominate the central Rocky Mountain fur trade. William Marshall Anderson wrote in his diary, ``This day we laid the foundation log of a fort.'' That log would be the cornerstone of the first permanent settlement in the future State of Wyoming. Sublette's trading post was officially named Fort William, although it was commonly referred to as the fort on Laramie's Fork or Fort Laramie.

Fort William was humble in size, measuring only 100 feet by 80 feet. The palisade was formed by 15-foot hewn cottonwood logs. There were log blockhouses located at diagonal corners. A third blockhouse, with mounted cannon, was over the main gate. Inside the fort was a series of cabins and storehouses with flat tops that nearly reached the top of the fort's walls. The fort's small size was in contrast to the large role it would play in American history.

The fort eventually became one of the principal trading centers with the Indian tribes of the Northern Plains, especially the Oglala and Sicangu Lakota. The beaver trade was already in decline at the time of Fort William's construction. Campbell and Sublette recognized that the future of the fur trade lay not in trapping, but in trading with the native peoples of the plains for buffalo robes. Each spring, caravans arrived at the fort with trade goods. In the fall, tons of buffalo hides and other furs were shipped east.

By 1841, the cottonwood log walls of Fort William had already begun to deteriorate and were in need of replacement. The owners of the fort erected a new adobe walled trading post nearby, naming it Fort John. Like its predecessor, however, it was popularly referred to as Fort Laramie. As the buffalo robe trade declined, the number of emigrants passing on their way to California, Oregon, and Utah grew from a trickle to a torrent. The fort rapidly became a major weigh station along the emigrant trails. As a result, the U.S. Government purchased the fort in 1849 and officially named it Fort Laramie.

Over the years, Fort Laramie filled a variety of roles as one of the largest and most important military post on the Northern Plains. The Northern Plains tribes fiercely defended their homeland against settlement by an ever-expanding Nation. Numerous military campaigns were launched from the fort. Important treaty negotiations with Indian tribes were also conducted at the fort. The most famous of these were the Horse Creek Treaty of 1851 and the still contested Treaty of 1868.

Eventually, Fort Laramie became a center of commerce for local homesteaders and ranchers. Fort Laramie saw rapid advances in communication and transportation technology. The Pony Express, the Transcontinental Telegraph, and stage lines passed through the fort. Fort Laramie truly became the ``Crossroads of a Nation Moving West.''

With the end of the Indian wars, Fort Laramie's usefulness to the government rapidly faded. The fort was abandoned in 1890 and sold at public auction. Fort Laramie slowly deteriorated over the next 48 years and nearly succumbed to the ravages of time. On July 16, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a proclamation creating the Fort Laramie National Monument. With the determined efforts of local citizens and Wyoming State legislators, the preservation of the site is secure. The fort was redesignated a National Historic Site by an act of Congress on April 29, 1960. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. In 1978, it was expanded to its present size of 835 acres by an act of Congress.

The Fort Laramie National Historic Site is administered by the National Park Service and is open to the public throughout the year. Interpretive programs are offered with living history talks and demonstrations available in the summer months. These programs offer visitors a chance to experience life on the frontier.

The site has an intensive preservation program to ensure the integrity of the historic structures for generations to come. Ten historic buildings have been completely restored and refurnished. These allow visitors a rare glimpse into the daily workings of a 19th century Indian Wars military post. The ruins and foundations of numerous other buildings are also preserved at this nationally significant historic treasure.

In celebration of the 175th anniversary of the founding of Fort Laramie, I invite my colleagues to visit the Fort Laramie National Historic Site. I congratulate the staff and volunteers whose dedication makes this piece of our history available to visitors from all over the world.

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

Madam President, the House of Representatives is prepared to pass the President's energy tax. It is also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The act, therefore, is known as ACES--American Clean Energy and Security Act. ACES is the right thing to call this particular bill because it gambles--it gambles--with the future of the American people. In blackjack, the dealer might have an ace that is showing, but one card in the dealer's hand is always hidden. In this case, the hidden card is the card that shows the real cost of this bill to the American taxpayer. What the taxpayer doesn't know is that the game is rigged. The taxpayer is going to lose. No matter how many times the majority adds to this hand another giveaway to special interests, another tax break to offset the monumental cost of this bill, the end will be just the same: The taxpayer goes bust and Washington will win the game.

ACES is the product of a supermajority that the Democrats have in the House of Representatives. Given the rules and given the procedures of the House, reasonable amendments are going to be defeated or even blocked from ever being considered. The final product will not be a real starting point to begin this debate on climate change.

ACES is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, and we will see there will be no environmental benefit from doing this bill-- none. That is not just my belief or my assessment alone, it is also the belief of others.

Martin Feldstein, noted Harvard economist, in a recent Washington Post article stated:

ACES will have a trivially small effect on global warming

while imposing substantial costs on all American households.

Let me repeat that: a trivially small effect, while imposing substantial costs. How big are the costs? Well, he cites the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve just a 15-percent reduction in carbon dioxide--slightly less than the target of this bill--would raise the cost of living $1,600 a year, every year, for every family in America. That is a $1,600 tax on every American family every year.

The Heritage Foundation predicts that the ACES approach could cost the economy $9.6 trillion and more than 1 million lost jobs into the future. And these are just the raw numbers. The real potential for economic pain goes much further.

David Sokol, chairman of MidAmerican Energy, points out that ACES-- this bill--could be a bonanza. And for whom will it be a bonanza? For more Wall Street corruption and more Wall Street greed because ACES is going to deal in investment banks, it is going to deal in hedge funds and other speculators who want to speculate in the cap-and-trade market. David Sokol points out:

If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy,

you're going to love cap and trade.

Coincidently, the House bill actually allows for credit default swaps.

He is not alone in his assessment. British scientist James Lovelock, who is a noted chemist and environmentalist, stated in January that:

Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just

what the finance industry wanted. It'll make a lot of money

for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

So he is saying it will make a lot of money for a lot of people in the financial industry.

Carbon markets can also cause huge fluctuations. We can look to Europe as an example and what we saw happen there. In February of this year, the Financial Times wrote an article entitled ``Fall in CO2 Price a Risk to Green Investment.'' It seems that the price of carbon in the European Union had fallen so low that it no longer provided an incentive to lower the use of carbon.

So those are things happening not just for this country but around the world.

Another problem is the huge economic gamble ACES makes by bypassing cheaper, low-carbon fuels by heavily relying on unreliable expensive energy. This ACES legislation mandates that by 2020 the electric utilities meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. This is the wrong approach. We need an all-of-the-above energy strategy to address our Nation's energy needs. We need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices for American families. That is how you create and that is how you then sustain economic development. So I would say, let's develop all of our energy sources--wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear, natural gas--all of the energy sources. Our Nation is so blessed with abundant energy resources. They are right here for us to use in a clean and environmentally friendly way. Coal is cheap and abundant in America. It is what is keeping our energy affordable today. Uranium is abundant in America too. Let's develop this proven zero-carbon resource. And, yes, let's develop all of the renewable energies--the wind, the solar, the hydropower. We need it all.

Lisa Jackson, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, recently took a trip to Wyoming, and this is what she said while she was in my home State of Wyoming:

As a home of wind, coal, and natural gas, Wyoming is at the

heart of America's energy future.

That is because Wyoming has it all. It has the coal, it has the wind, it has the natural resources of natural gas and oil and uranium for nuclear power. It has it all, and we need it all.

The bottom line is that the Democrats' cap-and-tax bill costs jobs and it raises energy prices. I don't understand why we can't make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices on American families. The administration wants to take a different approach. Why are the American people being given this stacked deck, where all of the options hurt the economy, raise energy prices, and cost jobs? The President says we need green jobs. I agree. We also need red, white, and blue jobs--American energy, American energy sources.

The reality is, this partisan energy tax bill passing in the House is a bad bet for all of us. We shouldn't double down with any more taxpayer money to bail out the climate through an energy tax.

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

Mr. President, we all know that one word can make a world of a difference, especially in Washington. Some are advocating for the removal of the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Restoration Act. Doing so would give the government control over all wet areas in the country. In this case, one word will send common sense soaring out the window.

It snows in Wyoming. When the snow melts, it often leaves large puddles on ranches and farms across the State.

The Federal Government should not be regulating mud puddles.

This proposal will be detrimental to Wyoming's farmers and ranchers. We have been living out here for a long time quite successfully without the ``helpful hand'' of Washington.

A recent article printed in the June edition of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation's newspaper, ``Wyoming Agriculture'' really hit home. I recommend my colleagues read the article by Kerin Clark. I believe it is an accurate reflection of the feelings of Wyoming farmers and ranchers on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns regarding the nomination of Regina McCarthy to be the Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation in the Environmental Protection Agency.

For the past few weeks, I have been seeking responses from the nominee and the administration on their efforts to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change.

I have put a hold on her because I have serious concerns about the EPA using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change.

I want to know the plan that the nominee will implement. I want to know how she will protect businesses, farms, hospitals, and nursing homes from the effects of the EPA's endangerment finding.

As you know, the endangerment finding designates CO2 as a harmful pollutant to public health under the Clean Air Act.

The finding's effects on the Clean Air Act will require EPA to regulate any building, structure, facility or installation that emits more than 250 tons of a CO2 in a year.

The result would be thousands of lost jobs, with no environmental benefit to show for it.

Hospitals, schools, farms, commercial building and nursing homes will be required to obtain preconstruction permits for their activities. EPA says this will not occur, that they will use discretion and good judgment.

According to legal scholars, the statutory language in the Clean Air Act is mandatory and does not leave any room for EPA to exercise discretion or create exceptions.

The only jobs that will be created are in law firms as the litigation bonanza begins. EPA will be sued by environmental groups wanting to eliminate exempted sectors. The EPA will also be sued by industries not exempted.

It will, as Democrat Congressman John Dingell stated, be a glorious mess.

I have nothing personal against Mrs. McCarthy. I simply wanted an answer to a question, the same question Americans all across our country want answered: How are you going to protect them?

I still do not have a credible answer to this question. I am tired of the stonewalling.

Mrs. McCarthy believes that she can not answer the question until she is confirmed by the Senate. That answer, I believe, is not good enough.

She has also stated that she wanted to be informed of any potential lawsuit. She stated she wanted to discuss the issue with the litigants in the hopes of convincing them not to sue.

Government officials can't go around the country trying to convince every litigant, whether it be a national environmental group or a local group, not to sue.

I have also posed this same question to the EPA Administrator in the hopes that she could provide EPA's plan on behalf of Ms. McCarthy.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that she can target what she regulates. She claims she will only target cars and trucks.

That is setting the precedent of picking winners and losers. We do not know what standards will be applied to make those decisions. We do not know what role politics will play in these decisions.

Administrator Jackson's statement also ignores the regulatory cascade that the endangerment finding and the motor vehicle emission standards will certainly trigger.

Litigators and courts will drive much of this job-killing regulation.

We have a nominee to head up the EPA's Air Office, Ms. Regina McCarthy. We have an Administrator of the EPA and we have a climate and energy czar who is supposed to coordinate climate change policy for the administration.

Carol Browner, the climate and energy czar has not been confirmed by Congress. We do not know who is developing a roadmap for how to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change.

What jobs in what industries will be kept? Which industries will be penalized? Who will be held accountable for making these decisions?

The economic consequences of the ticking timebomb will be devastating.

By the EPA's own estimate, the typical preconstruction permit in 2007 cost each applicant $125,000 and 866 hours to obtain.

Ranchers or private nursing homes have no background in this area. They will need to hire lawyers. They will need to hire experts. They will be taking time out of their day to figure out all this redtape.

This will create such a fog of uncertainty with investors and small businesses. This makes small businesses even riskier to lend money to; nobody will know how much this will cost their business.

With lending having already ground to a halt, this is hardly the right move to help our economy.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are 1.2 million schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farms, small businesses, and other commercial entities that would be vulnerable to new controls, monitoring, paperwork, and litigation.

If even 1 percent of the 1.2 million have to get preconstruction permits, that would mean 12,000 new preconstruction permits a year.

By the EPA's own analysis, if permitting is increased by just two to three thousand, this would impose ``significant new costs and an administrative burden on permitting authorities.''

According to the EPA, this ``could overwhelm permitting authorities.''

The net result of all of this will be thousands of jobs lost.

As I have stated previously on the floor, if the administration can not tell us by what legal authority they can pick winners and losers, if the administration can not provide economic certainty to lenders and businesses, if the administration does not know how they will deal with all the thousands of new preconstruction permits, they should take this job killing option off the table.

There appears to be such a frenzy of political pressure from special interests to pass something on climate change.

The pressure has reached the point where enacting any climate change policy before Copenhagen is more important than addressing its aftermath.

The thinking is, just get something done on climate change. We will deal with the impacts later.

That's not how you make good policy.

But that is exactly what is going on here.

The President's own attorneys, from a host of Federal agencies, have expressed concerns with this approach.

Their concerns were contained in a memo.

This memo is a well thought out, scientific and legal critique of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change by the Obama administration.

It confirms the fears of every small business owner, every farmer, school and hospital administrator, both large and small, that the Obama administration knows that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America.

They know it, but for political reasons, they have ignored the science, the consequences to our economy and the impact to the American people.

The memo states, ``Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs.''

The document also highlights that EPA undertook no ``systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis'' in making their endangerment finding.

The White House legal brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary.

EPA Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that ``scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified . . .''

But the Obama administration's memo states that this is not accurate.

The memo actually questions the science behind designating CO2 as a health threat stating the scientific data on which the agency relies are ``almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.''

The memo goes on to say the essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are ``not well determined'' and ``not well understood.''

This memo confirms that the administration has so far ignored its own advice.

What is somewhat surprising is that those who express these concerns are ridiculed or, even worse, attacked by administration officials.

In one instance, attempts were made by administration personnel to smear the reputation of a career employee at the Small Business Administration.

This was a person who offered a reasonable and thoughtful critique of the impact the endangerment finding has on small business.

This is unacceptable behavior by the administration.

Strangely enough, not just the authors of the Obama administration legal brief, but also environmental groups, disagree with EPA Administrator Jackson's position that a targeted approach under the Clean Air Act is legal and appropriate.

The Sierra Club's chief climate counsel stated last year that ``the Clean Air Act has language in there that is kind of all or nothing if CO2 gets regulated and it could be unbelievably complicated and administratively nightmarish.''

I have warned the administration that groups such as these will sue the EPA if the EPA does not capture both large and small emitters. She has dismissed such threats. This is despite the Wall Street Journal report last month that a representative of the Center of Biological Diversity stated her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters, such as farms, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, if the EPA stops at simply the large emitters.

I have asked for a plan from the administration on how she will address losing court cases if the agency is sued for picking winners and losers. Her response in a committee hearing 3 weeks ago is she could not share with me any such plans in that forum.

I have posed the question to the administration: If you can't share information with the elected representatives of the 50 States, then in what forum, if not a Senate hearing, can you share the information?

I am confident the majority believes they have a strong chance at passing something along the lines of the Waxman-Markey bill this Congress regarding climate change. They are hopeful they can get something to the President for him to sign. If hope alone could pass legislation, we could all adjourn early. But hope is not certainty. The negative effects of the endangerment finding on the American economy is certain.

The bottom line is that the nominee, as well as Lisa Jackson and the administration, appears to have no credible plan to use the Clean Air Act in a way to regulate climate change.

There is only one responsible choice for us to make. Let us take this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table. This is why I plan to introduce a bill very soon that will take the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change.

I wish to give every Member an opportunity to join me in giving the Senate and the American people the time we need to forge a sound energy and climate strategy, a strategy that makes energy as clean as we can-- and I am talking about American energy--as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices for American families.

Let's develop all of our energy resources--our wind, our solar, our geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear, and natural gas. We need an ``all of the above'' strategy to address our Nation's needs. As Lisa Jackson, the EPA Director, stated on a recent trip to my home State of Wyoming, ``As a home of wind, coal, and natural gas, Wyoming is at the heart of America's energy future.'' That is because Wyoming has it all--coal, wind, natural gas, oil, and uranium for nuclear power. We have it all, and we need it all. I look forward to working with my colleagues, as well as Ms. Jackson, to make that happen.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.