Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Saturday, June 2, 2012, I was present at the commissioning of the USS Mississippi in Pascagoula, MS. The USS Mississippi is a Virginia class submarine, part of the ``next generation'' of attack subs. The submarine was constructed by General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, CT, as well as Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls in Newport News, VA

This is a mighty submarine that bears a mighty proud name. The citizens of the state of Mississippi enthusiastically embrace the fifth Navy vessel in our Republic's history that bears the name USS Mississippi. The naming of the submarine as USS Mississippi recognizes our State's long-standing tradition of shipbuilding in support of our Nation's defense. It also honors the spirit of the people of Mississippi who have made great strides in recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

It is appropriate that this ship was completed a full year ahead of schedule. Mississippians have always been early to step forward in the service of their country. It is a fact that volunteers from our State have always been known to step forward quickly and eagerly to serve their country. So for many the words USS Mississippi will stand for patriotism and readiness.

For those who remember Katrina and Deep Water Horizon, the words USS Mississippi may mean ``resilience'' or ``quiet resolve.'' Within the ranks of the U.S. Navy, USS Mississippi will be associated with the words ``state-of-the-art,'' the best in the world. For them, that is what USS Mississippi will mean. And for the Ship's Sponsor Allison Stiller, she will think of the word ``tenacity.'' And no doubt our adversaries, wherever they may be, will hear the words USS Mississippi and think ``strength'' and perhaps they will think the word ``freedom.''

Within the borders of this traditional ``Bible Belt'' state, we will think about our Founding Father's reliance on Almighty God. I can assure CPT John McGrath, his Commissioning Crew, and those who will serve on this submarine that you will be prayed for each and every day. These prayers may be a quiet whispered prayer at night or early in the morning or they may be the majestic words of William Whiting, who wrote this hymn:

Eternal Father, strong to save,

Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,

Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep

Its own appointed limits keep;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea

Most Holy Spirit! Who didst brood

Upon the chaos dark and rude,

And bid its angry tumult cease,

And give, for wild confusion, peace;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea!

With apologies to the author and perhaps to those who know this hymn well, I have attempted to pen an extra verse:

From Pascagoula's shores we send

The finest sailors known to men,

Proud Mississippi's name they bear;

Lord, bless and keep them free from care,

Protect them when they call to Thee,

Our sons and daughters now at sea.

Congratulations to Captain McGrath and his Commissioning Crew, God bless the United States, and God bless those who will serve on the USS Mississippi.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the accomplishments of an extraordinary Mississippian. Natasha Trethewey, a native of Gulfport, Mississippi, has been named the United States Poet Laureate. I join my fellow Mississippians and fellow Americans in celebrating Ms. Trethewey, a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet, for receiving our country's highest distinction in the field of poetry.

This honor is the first of its kind for my State, but literary excellence is not new to Mississippi. Our great State has a rich literary history because of Mississippians like William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, and Tennessee Williams, who have paved the way for Ms. Trethewey's success in literature.

At the young age of 46, Ms. Trethewey has proven herself to be a talented and accomplished American writer. A prolific artist, she explored the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in her nonfiction work, ``Beyond Katrina: A Meditation on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.''

Our incoming Poet Laureate has captured the hearts and minds of her colleagues and peers, earning her a fan base across our State and Nation. Librarian of Congress James Billington is among those captivated by Ms. Trethewey's brilliance. In 2004, at the National Book Festival, Dr. Billington described Ms. Tretheway as an American who is ``absolutely unique.'' Today, I am proud to repeat Dr. Billington's praise for this gifted Mississippian.

Natasha Trethewey is not only a leader in her field but also a teacher for this Nation's future leaders. She is a professor and Phillis Wheatley Distinguished Chair in Poetry at Emory University and is the Louis D. Rubin Writer-in-Residence for 2012 at Hollins University. She received her Pulitzer Prize in Poetry in 2007 for her 2006 work, Native Guard. In the past year, Ms. Trethewey was named the Poet Laureate of Mississippi, an esteemed position my State is proud for her to hold.

Mr. President, I have the highest admiration for this accomplished poet, author, and Mississippian. I know that my fellow Mississippians share this pride in Ms. Trethewey's work and national recognition. I am honored to congratulate Natasha Trethewey on her appointment as the 2012 United States Poet Laureate.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concern about a matter of national security. It is a matter that is increasingly more visible with the American people. It is a matter that they are more and more concerned about as they hear more. It is an issue that is not going away until it is properly investigated by the executive branch of this government. That, of course, is the recent news publications that discussed details of counterterrorism plans, programs, and operations of our government. These publications refer to specific counterterrorism military and intelligence activities that are among the most classified and highly sensitive national security operations involving our military and our intelligence community. The leaks of this information constitute a grave breach of our vital national security interests.

The President, in his press conference last Friday, attempted to distance his administration from these damaging leaks, stating, ``The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified national security information is offensive.''

The matter is certainly offensive and needs to be fully investigated.

I must point out that the President did not explicitly deny that members of his administration were responsible for leaking classified or sensitive information to the media. As a matter of fact, so many of the news reports, quite frankly, point to members of this administration for these damaging and criminal leaks.

Any mishandling of classified material must be taken with the utmost seriousness. The authors of these publications cite unnamed senior administration officials and Presidential aides as their sources. We need to know the names of these senior administration officials, we need to know the names of these Presidential aides, and we need to know, quite frankly, if they were engaged in criminal breaches of our espionage and intelligence statutes.

Our men and women in the military and our intelligence community officials work under extremely difficult conditions. These leaks have put their lives in danger. These leaks have put their methods and their ongoing operations at risk. They need to stop, and they need to be investigated.

All individuals privy to the White House discussions regarding counterterrorism and intelligence operations hold security clearances at the very highest levels. Before being granted access to these classified items of information, individuals must undergo a thorough background investigation and receive extensive security training regarding proper procedures for handling classified materials. They are trained as to what they can say and what they ought not to say. They are trained as to what the law requires and what the law prohibits. It is clear that any potential leak of classified material was not an accidental slip of the tongue but a deliberate and brazen violation of Federal law, and we need to get to the bottom of this.

I will also add that we are not talking about an isolated instance of a leak. As the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein, rightly observed last Wednesday, we are talking about what she described as an ``avalanche'' of leaks--an avalanche of leaks--on national security matters that have, in her words, put our Nation's security in jeopardy, to quote the chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Quoting from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry:

A number of those leaks, and others in the last months

about drone activities and other activities, are frankly all

against national-security interests.

He goes on to say:

I think they're dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing

that is not acting in the interest of the United States of

America.

Yet, news reports say these reports come from senior administration officials. We need to find out who these administration officials are.

Then, further to quote Senator Feinstein, whom I began quoting earlier:

When people say they don't want to work with the United

States because they can't trust us to keep a secret, that's

serious. When allies become concerned when an asset's life is

in jeopardy or the asset's family's life is in jeopardy,

that's a problem. The point of intelligence is to be able to

know what might happen to protect this country.

I could go on and on.

I have joined 10 of my colleagues in cosponsoring a Senate resolution that urges the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, to appoint an independent special counsel to investigate classified information leaks by the administration. Yet instead of a special counsel, the Attorney General has merely appointed two Justice Department attorneys to investigate the leaks, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen, and his counterpart in Maryland, Rod Rosenstein.

Although I have no question about their abilities, the appointment of these two Obama administration officials is unacceptable and raises questions as to their independence. A truly independent investigation would almost certainly reveal any breaches of the criminal law concerning classified information essential to national security. A truly independent counsel would have his or her own prosecutorial discretion. If the administration leaks such information, the public has a right to know and the public has a right to be outraged. The lives of Americans and our friends have already been put at risk. The Obama administration cannot be expected to pursue a complete self- investigation of allegations of this magnitude. In the midst of an election, they simply cannot be asked to do this, especially when those responsible could well be members of the administration themselves.

Attorney General Holder is a principal on the President's national security team. Members of this team may very well have been the sources of these leaks--members of the Attorney General's team. I wish to ask this: Does the administration want the truth in this or is the administration simply looking for cover? What is it about an independent special counsel that frightens this administration? Is it the truth this administration is afraid of? Are Americans more likely to get the truth from a truly independent counsel or from U.S. attorneys who will still report directly to the Attorney General?

The administration's concern about special counsels is understandable. If an independent counsel investigation reveals proof of leaks for political gain, it will not be pretty and will not sit well with the American people.

This Sunday marks the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. It started small, but as more and more people began to ask questions and as more and more people began to demand a true investigation, the truth finally was revealed and it brought down a Presidency. Early on in Watergate, a member of my political party, a member of President Nixon's political party, a former nominee for President, Barry Goldwater, came forward to the

American people and said: Let's get the truth out. No more coverups. Let's get rid of the stink and let's find out what was going on.

Members of my party should have heeded the words of Barry Goldwater at that moment and perhaps the scandal could have been brought to light and people involved in the subsequent coverup would not have been asked to do so. Barry Goldwater was right.

Members of both political parties would be well advised to ask this administration to come forward, appoint a truly independent counsel to have a truly independent investigation of these breaches of national security. What I am talking about is evidence of criminal disclosures of national intelligence secrets, disclosures that have damaged our national security and continue to damage our national security. This issue is not going away. I urge the Attorney General, I urge my President, to ensure confidence in government, to appoint a special counsel to investigate and hold accountable anyone responsible for these flagrant violations of our national security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou on his inauguration as President of Taiwan. From his education at Harvard University, to becoming the youngest cabinet minister in the history of Taiwan, to his election to the Presidency of Taiwan in 2008, President Ma has faced difficult challenges. As Justice Minister he took on the task of rooting out political corruption. As President he has faced the daunting charge of navigating Taiwan through the economic downturn, and after just a few years Taiwan has seen successful economic growth. In addition, President Ma has made notable progress in improving cross- strait relations. During his first term, he successfully negotiated 16 trade agreements with the People's Republic of China, increasing economic cooperation between these two countries.

For all of his hard work and success, I congratulate President Ma and wish him well on his second term in office. I hope the U.S. and Taiwan can continue to advance our shared interests and goals and to strengthen our valued relationship.

Mr. President, I have been told I have 10 minutes allocated, and I shall use probably less than that allocation.

I thank the Chair for recognizing me and I appreciate the time.

I want to agree with my friend from Rhode Island to this extent: He said this debate is based on a false premise. And I agree with him in this respect. This is not a reality debate about a budget resolution. These are show votes. These are messaging votes we have today.

One can argue all he or she wants that we have a budget in place that we voted on last year, but there is no getting around 2 U.S.C. 631, which is the budget law of the United States of America, passed back in 1974. That budget law requires Congress each year to pass a budget resolution. As a matter of fact, it says on or before April 15 of each year, Congress completes action on a concurrent resolution on the budget.

The last time this Senate did that was in 2009. We missed the April 15 deadline in 2010, the leadership of this body missed that deadline in 2011, and they missed it again this year. It has been that long since this body, under the leadership of my friends across the aisle, have complied with the explicit terms of the Federal statute and brought a budget to full consideration on the floor.

What we will have today is debate on five concepts. I am happy to vote for some of them, and will certainly vote against others, but make no mistake about it, this is not the process called for by the Federal statute and it doesn't comply with the law and doesn't serve the purposes of advancing public policy in the United States of America. We are long overdue for a real budget debate that puts something in place.

As I mentioned a moment ago, we have passed the 3-year mark now-- 1,100 days--since Senate Democrats fulfilled one of their basic obligations, as I mentioned, laid out in Federal statute. A recent column in the Washington Times pointed out that the iPad had not yet even been introduced when the last budget was passed on the floor of this Senate. But since that time, in 3 years, Federal spending has topped a staggering $10 trillion.

Every day our country's debt grows closer to $16 trillion. This is money my generation will not be able to pay. We have our pages here on the floor. Even their generation will not be able to pay off this $16 trillion in debt. It will be left to their children and grandchildren. Annual deficits continue to soar, adding to that debt--over $1 trillion each year during President Obama's time in office--even though the President promised in 2009 he would cut the deficit in half during his first term, a promise that certainly has not been fulfilled. Instead, his latest budget relies more on spending, new taxes, and accounting gimmicks, and it leaves insolvent entitlement programs without meaningful reform.

I noticed the previous speaker stated he would not be voting for President Obama's budget proposal. I think it is because it is such a false and weak proposal. I expect the Obama budget today would get the same response it got on the floor of the Senate during these messaging votes last year when it failed to get a single vote. As I understand it, it failed to get a single vote in the House of Representatives. Not one Republican or Democrat in the House of Representatives earlier this year was willing to step forward and embrace the Obama budget proposal, and it got a big fat zero when it was put to a messaging vote in the House of Representatives. So we are watching a disastrous trajectory and we need to change it now.

Families, businesses, and organizations in my home State of Mississippi, and in every State across the country, know the importance of having a sensible budget and living within that budget; likewise, taxpayers deserve to see a blueprint of where their money is going and how much will be spent. Washington must be held accountable.

We heard talk on the other side of the aisle about priorities that our Democratic friends wish to see enacted. The Democratic majority in the Budget Committee needs to bring those priorities forward. They need to wrap them up in a budget resolution and bring them to the floor. That is the one thing we are not seeing today--a proposal by the Democratic majority.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. There is no two-thirds rule on a budget resolution. There is no filibuster on a budget resolution. My Democratic colleagues, many of whom are dear friends of mine, have 53 Members in this caucus. They have the votes. We know a budget is required every year. Yet with a 53-vote majority, and with only 51 votes required, they do not bring a budget to the floor for us to consider so we can know what their budget priorities are.

There are plenty of excuses from across the aisle for not complying with the clear mandate, but there is no excuse. It is inexcusable that the majority party in this Chamber refuses to fulfill this statutory responsibility when the warning signs of fiscal calamity are at our doorstep.

You know, it is no wonder our popularity rating as a Congress is down around 10 or 11 percent when this Federal statute explicitly requires us to do this by April of each year and we do not do it. It is no wonder we are held in such low regard by the public. Inaction ultimately bequeaths a burden of debt to our children and grandchildren.

We certainly cannot blame the inaction on an absence of ideas. As has been stated by my friend from Rhode Island, we have five proposals before us today. President Obama's will probably get zero votes. The House Republican blueprint will be considered, and budgets from Senators Lee, Paul, and Toomey. Yet the Senate Democrats, regrettably, stay on the sidelines. They have the votes, but we do not have their proposal on the floor--one they are willing to put forward and tell the American people they own.

My friend the budget chairman has suggested the upcoming election stands in the way. In April he said:

This is the wrong time to vote in committee. This is the

wrong time to vote on the floor. I don't think we will be

prepared to vote before the election.

I want to make it clear, I have the highest affection and regard for the chairman of the Budget Committee, but I do believe what he is saying, in other words, is that we have a job to do, we have a law to comply with, but we are not going to bring it up at this time because of political concerns. I think political concerns are keeping our friends on the other side from saying where they stand on the budget issues. I think political concerns are keeping them from making the hard choices.

I can imagine the American taxpayer would like to know when will be the right time for the Senate to begin complying with Federal law and the right time for a budget that takes fiscal responsibility seriously. They know kicking the can down the road will not make the debt problem go away.

I noticed recently our Commander in Chief told a Russian leader that after

the election he would have more flexibility on a national security issue--the issue of national military defense. He said, I need to have some time, because after the election I will have more flexibility. Please pass that along to Vladimir. I suppose my friends on the other side of the aisle believe they will have more flexibility on spending issues and budget issues and taxation issues after the election.

The truth is Republicans and Democrats have differences on a number of issues, but that should not deter a concentrated effort to lower the deficit and curb runaway spending. I hope this week we can focus on constructive dialogue. I would have hoped we would have an honest process and do what is right and necessary to put this country's fiscal house back in order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Pharmacy Competition and Consumer Choice Act, S. 1058. In light of the Federal Trade Commission's recent decision to allow the merger of two Pharmacy Benefit Managers, creating the largest PBM in our nation, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital piece of legislation. The Pharmacy Competition and Consumer Choice Act, if enacted, would help protect patients and providers from soaring health-care costs and potentially anticompetitive conduct by PBMs, who are the middlemen in the prescription drug industry.

Over the past several years, I have spoken with many of Mississippi's pharmacists who feel powerless against PBMs and their overreaching influence in their industry. In Mississippi, where over 1 million individuals live in rural, medically underserved areas, community pharmacists play a pivotal role in providing health care to patients. These pharmacists, often the only health-care providers in an area, develop trusting relationships with their customers and communities. This legislation will help level the playing field between community pharmacies and PBMs, while ensuring Americans have access to the providers of their choice.

While a few States, such as my State of Mississippi, regulate the activities of PBMs, these powerful players in health care remain largely unregulated by the Federal Government. PBMs compete across state lines in our country, and this legislation would provide national anti-fraud oversight in each of our 50 States.

The need for this legislation is clearer now than ever. With the upcoming merger, one company will control 40 percent of the market. As one FTC Commissioner appropriately stated, it will be a ``game changer.''

I am an unyielding supporter of free markets, and I strongly believe this legislation would facilitate a more transparent, competitive, and fair marketplace for PBMs, pharmacies, providers, and patients. On behalf of the millions of Americans and businesses affected by the market practices of Pharmacy Benefit Managers, I urge my colleagues to pass the Pharmacy Competition and Consumer Choice Act.

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, this week marks the somber anniversary 2 years ago, on Friday, April 20, 2010, of an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oilrig in the Gulf of Mexico which took 11 lives and triggered the worst oilspill in American history. We still remember the families of those who were lost and those who were injured on that fateful day. We are forever grateful to the thousands of volunteers and relief workers from all over the world who responded in the wake of this disaster.

In Mississippi, like other Gulf States, the BP oilspill caused immeasurable damage not only on the shoreline but also to all sectors of our economy. Misperceptions of tainted seafood and oil-covered beaches devastated our seafood and tourism industries. Local businesses already challenged by a difficult economy were crippled by the disruption in market demand.

The moratorium that the Obama administration put on drilling cost our economy critical jobs related to domestic energy production and its associated support industries. The administration's delays on drilling permits are still stalling job creation along the gulf coast.

Many of my colleagues and I have come to the floor in recent weeks to talk about a better energy policy, specifically to offer solutions to lower gas prices. The administration's slowdown of domestic energy production keeps us dependent on foreign energy providers, ultimately hurting Americans at the pump.

There is no doubt that the residents of Mississippi and other Gulf States are resilient and have persevered through unprecedented circumstances. But there is work left to do. I urge all of my colleagues to remain committed to the coast's full recovery. I applaud the Senate's recent bipartisan passage of the RESTORE Act as part of the Transportation bill. It is imperative that coastal communities have the resources they need to rebuild and revitalize.

Under the provisions of the RESTORE Act, local officials will have the ability to prioritize the economic and ecological projects that are most critical to their own recovery. Local communities are in the best position to make these decisions, and needless government redtape should not stand in the way. Directly distributing Clean Water Act fines would ensure that the affected parties are compensated accordingly.

The RESTORE Act is an encouraging step forward for all Gulf Coast States.

I urge the House of Representatives to show the same support for the gulf coast in passing this important piece of legislation. Both parties can agree that the revitalization of our Gulf States is a priority and that providing local perspectives is vital to our recovery efforts. The disaster that occurred 2 years ago was an extraordinary tragedy with long-term consequences, and we cannot forget about the needs that persist.

The gulf coast provides one-third of the seafood harvested in the continental United States. The gulf coast is home to 6 of our country's 10 largest commercial ports. Mississippi and all Gulf States make up a vibrant part of this country, and the residents and businesses there are key contributors to the national economy.

There is no doubt that keeping our gulf strong is vital to our national interest, and part of that would be the passage of the RESTORE Act.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today greatly disturbed and upset, as are many Americans, by the comments President Obama made on Monday to outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the nuclear security summit in Seoul, Korea. The exchange, which was accidentally recorded by a Russian journalist, suggests that President Obama's stance on missile defense will change after the November election. It implies that the President is willing to make more concessions to an authoritarian government that has caused Americans concern time and time again. It raises questions about what else might be hidden on the President's agenda if he secures a second term in the White House.

Americans can view the recording themselves as President Obama tells Mr. Medvedev:

On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this

can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me

space.

``Him'' meaning former and future President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Medvedev responds by saying:

Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space.

Space for you.

President Obama then goes on to say:

This is my last election. After my election, I have more

flexibility.

It is unbelievable and chilling that President Obama would make his election a factor in how he deals with an important national security issue that could have dangerous implications for America and its allies. Even the hint of compromising on our missile defense capability is reckless when the prospect of nuclear-armed missiles is a real and growing threat.

Equally alarming is the looming question lingering over what the President actually means when he says ``more flexibility.'' The administration continues to press for resetting bilateral relations but fails to follow through on an approach that takes into consideration how Russia has not made good on its promises in the past. Simply put, we cannot trust the Russian Government to keep its word. We have no reason to believe that greater cooperation will come from giving the Russians what they want.

The question now arises: How can we trust our own President not to say one thing before the election and yet do something entirely different afterwards? Let us not forget the Russian Ambassador vetoed two United Nations Security Council resolutions supporting the Syrian people, a move that prompted the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, to say that Russia decided to stand with a dictator. Indeed, Russia seems comfortable standing beside a dictator.

In addition, Russian officials rejected the idea of tougher sanctions against Iran despite a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency reinforcing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Russia also voted against the United Nation's General Assembly resolution expressing concern over the ``violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights'' in North Korea.

Many of my colleagues and I have come to the floor on multiple occasions to express our concern with Russia's deteriorating rule of law and respect for human rights. This is not the kind of relationship President Obama promised when he pressed for passage of the new START treaty in late 2010 over strong objections from many of my colleagues. It sends the wrong signal to our allies throughout Europe who are worried about undue pressure from Russia. At the end of the day, better U.S.-Russian relations are not a foregone conclusion, and President Obama would be wise to remember that one-sided promises are not the means to get there. He should also not forget that the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate on foreign policy decisions.

Over the coming months the Senate will likely take up several issues related to Russia, and I look forward to having a frank discussion about the President's ideas and the President's intentions. Mr. Obama's comments in Seoul are only one instance of the President pledging to have more flexibility after election day, but they rightly cause us to speculate about what else he expects to do. Americans are right to wonder what other promises are being made that we do not know about.

At the end of the exchange in Seoul, President Obama and President Medvedev clasped hands and Mr. Medvedev promised, ``I will transmit this information to Vladimir.'' In other words, but for the accident of an open microphone, the President's intentions would have been known by Mr. Putin, but not known by the American people. Mr. Medvedev's reply is a grim reminder of what happens when one person is able to seize unrestrained power, as Mr. Putin has demonstrated, and should be a lesson for all of us. It also should give all Americans pause as we approach this fall's election.

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

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

Mr. President, we continue to watch fuel costs skyrocket--shockingly so in the last 3 months--as the average price of a gallon of gasoline breaks records again and again for this time of year. Today, the national average, when I last checked, was $3.91 per gallon.

When President Obama took office, Americans paid $1.85 for a gallon of regular gasoline. Now they are paying more than twice that price, with analysts projecting even higher spikes on the horizon. Some are speculating gasoline prices could top $5 per gallon by summer. Now Senate Democrats propose raising taxes on gasoline production.

We hear a lot about an all-of-the-above energy approach, and that needs to be put into practice. This should include expanding access to America's critical resources. Instead, the President insists on flawed energy strategies such as using taxpayer money for high-risk projects such as Solyndra, while delaying drilling in the gulf.

The President has slowed the permitting process, he has blocked leases, and he has supported higher energy taxes and more regulations. His actions have come at the expense of valuable opportunities for greater domestic energy. The gains our energy producers have made are in spite of the President's policies, not because of them.

The de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico made it clear that strengthening the country's energy security was not a White House priority. The plan the President proposed for offshore oil and gas leasing for the next 5 years would open less than 3 percent of offshore areas for production.

Then there was the rejection by the President of the Keystone XL Pipeline--the subject of an extensive environmental vetting process and a project which would guarantee nearby available oil from our largest trading partner. The President may talk about the need for oil and gas pipelines and even try to take credit for the lower part of the pipeline that did not need his approval, but there is no denying his administration is responsible for roadblocks standing in the way of a better national energy policy.

The 830,000 barrels per day the Keystone Pipeline would transport offers a 7-percent increase to current imports. Vetoing it keeps Americans vulnerable to spiking gas prices and the dangerous whims of energy providers from volatile regions of the world.

High fuel prices can have far-reaching economic effects. According to the Oil Price Information Service, Americans spent more on gasoline in 2011 than in any other year in the past three decades--some $481 billion. For the average household, about 8.4 percent of the family budget or $4,155 went toward filling up at the pump last year. Of course, it is more this year. This means consumers have less money to spend and invest in their local communities, ultimately hurting the economic growth we desperately need.

In 2008, then-Senator Obama said he would have preferred a gradual adjustment of gas prices. That same year, Energy Secretary-to-be Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.'' This is the President's choice for Energy Secretary, someone who wants our gasoline prices to be at the $8-per-gallon level they are experiencing in Europe. This mentality has not changed since 2008. Earlier this month, President Obama said the only solution was to start using less. That lowers the demand and prices come down, according to the President. He later asserted that ``how much oil we produce at home'' is ``not going to set the price of gas worldwide.'' Somehow, using less will lower the prices, according to the President, but producing more will not lower the prices. In other words, the President believes in only half the principle of supply and demand.

Indeed, basic economics tells us otherwise. It tells us that alleviating demand can lower prices but having a greater supply does that too. The argument the President is trying to make that domestic production is inconsequential does not add up. Not expanding production forces American wealth to go overseas because we have to buy our oil from overseas. As Charles Krauthammer recently wrote in the Washington Post:

Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those

dollars within the United States economy.

That is exactly what we need to do in these troubling times.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have enough oil within our borders to supply our own fuel needs for 250 years. That is not Senator Wicker talking; that is not a Presidential candidate talking; that is the Institute for Energy Research--250 years we have in the United States. Yet they are being kept off-limits by the administration.

Now the administration wants an $85 billion energy tax hike. This new tax will not translate into cheaper gasoline, a fact my Democratic colleagues have, in fact, acknowledged. It will make it more expensive to produce, drive up imports, and hamper economic investment.

According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, higher energy taxes will increase gas prices and likely increase foreign dependence--exactly what we don't want to do. This would ultimately hurt average Americans who depend on affordable gas prices to get to work every day and businesses--small businesses--that need fuel to transport their goods and services. We have seen how the administration likes to use taxpayer money on high-risk bets such as Solyndra and algae. Instead of gambling on unproven ideas, we should be ensuring economic growth with policies that strengthen our energy capacity. We are blessed to live in a country with plentiful resources and we are far from maximizing America's energy potential.

I have filed amendment No. 1966 to this bill. The amendment would establish a production goal for the Obama administration's 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan. It calls for 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by the year 2027. Compared to today's levels, this increase in production would triple America's current offshore production and reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third. By setting these benchmarks for the output of oil and natural gas, we can make measurable progress toward energy independence.

So I would propound this parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: If we were on the bill at this point, would it be in order for me to offer such an amendment, No. 1966, at this time?

I regret that. I hope we can negotiate on both sides of the aisle

so amendments such as this can be offered.

To set benchmarks, we could use an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion additional cubic feet of natural gas per day to help us attack this very serious energy problem.

I would simply conclude by saying today's high gasoline prices confirm the urgency of pursuing better energy strategies as demand for oil continues to increase across the globe. Taking steps now is essential to meeting future needs and bringing relief at the pump.

Seeing no one who is seeking to speak--does the Senator seek to speak? If so, I yield the floor.

Madam President, are we in morning business?

Madam President, I rise to speak on the second-year anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care law. I will be joined shortly by a few of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that at that point we engage in a colloquy.

Madam President, on Friday of this week 2 years will have passed since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. This is actually a sad anniversary because more than enough time has gone by to reveal the failures of this massive, burdensome piece of legislation.

The fact that 26 of our 50 States--more than half of the States--are part of the legal challenge currently under review by the Supreme Court points out the inevitable truth: This is a law that simply does not work.

The case that will be heard in a few days will be one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of my lifetime--consequential not only because it deals with this massive, burdensome piece of legislation but because the implications go so much further. The Supreme Court case will decide the scope of the commerce clause. Indeed, my colleagues, if the Supreme Court decides this law can withstand constitutional scrutiny, then this large, massive Federal Government can, in fact, do almost anything, and there will be hardly any limitations under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the power of the U.S. Federal Government.

Americans are right to be disappointed with Obamacare, and they are right to want it repealed. And regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case, this Congress can decide and, as a matter of fact, the people of the United States will have a chance in November, as we do every 2 years, to decide.

A recent Gallup poll shows that twice as many Americans think the law will make things worse for their families than those who believe it will make things better. Seventy-two percent of Americans believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The truth is that Americans deserve affordable, high-quality health care, not a 2,700-page, big-government piece of legislation that taxes, spends, and regulates. The President's health care law has not lowered the cost of health care as promised. It has not created jobs as promised. It has not reduced the deficit as promised. So this week we mark the anniversary not with progress but with bitter realities.

President Obama, in his joint session speech to Congress in 2009, asserted that his plan ``will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.'' In fact, last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation updated their outlook of the health care law's impact on the Federal budget. Not surprisingly, their latest analysis says Obamacare will cost even more than anticipated. And the anticipated costs were high, indeed, but they say the health care law will cost nearly $1.8 trillion over the next decade or double the estimated cost that accompanied the bill when Democratic supermajorities passed it in 2010. This is hardly the relief President Obama promised.

During his campaign, the President said the plan would reduce health care premiums by an average of $2,500 per family. Instead, premiums have grown by nearly that much since he was elected.

I see I am joined by two of my colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

There are a number of other promises we are talking about today, and I know we don't impugn motives around here--that is against the rules-- but one has to wonder, did advocates of this massive law actually believe these promises or were they simply duped and misled? And I don't know which is worse, but I know that my colleague Dr. Barrasso, himself a physician who is on the front line of this issue, has given this a great deal of thought, so at this point I ask him to join in this colloquy.

If I could jump in on the issue of Medicare because I have a quote here from President Obama, July 29, 2009: ``Medicare is a government program, but do not worry, I am not going touch it.'' As a matter of fact, only months later he signed into law Obamacare, which takes $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare. And it touches on the very issue the Senator from Kansas was referring to with regard to Medicare access for people in rural Kansas.

Madam President, to summarize what the Senator from Arizona has just said, the CLASS Act was sold to the American people as a budget deficit reducer. It was going to reduce the deficit. No sooner was it signed and they started looking at it that the administration itself said: We know it is unworkable, and we abandon it. We are not even going to try to enforce it.

Madam President, I know our friend from South Dakota has joined us and is eager to join in this discussion. I wonder if he has anything to add about the broken promises that were made during the passage of ObamaCare.

Madam President, let me ask my colleagues about another promise. They will call time on us soon.

Does anybody recall hearing this statement from the President of the United States in 2009? He said this:

If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep

your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no

matter what.

That was the President on June 15, 2009. What happened to that?

So the promise was not to touch Medicare, and that promise has not been fulfilled. The promise was to reduce the deficit, and that turned out to be an empty promise.

Also, we were told by the President and by Speaker Pelosi this bill would create jobs. The President said it was a key pillar for a new foundation for prosperity. How has that turned out? Former Speaker Pelosi said in its life the health care bill will create 4 million jobs--400,000 almost immediately.

Of course, neither of those promises has come true. The nonpartisan CBO has estimated the health care law will reduce America's workforce. This is the bipartisan CBO. They said it will reduce America's workforce by 800,000 jobs over the next 10 years. That fact has been confirmed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

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