mr. sessions: madam president, during the summer, democrats and republicans, as americans well remember, had a big political dust-up over trying to reduce spending as we approached the nation's debt limit. as we know, the product of that fight was a leadership-brokered deal that promised long-term savings in discretionary spending of around $900 billion. it also created -- that is, over ten years, not just in one year -- it also created the super committee which has been meeting in secret to find another $1.2 trillion in possible savings, we hope they

do. they should do more than that, frankly. whatever they come up with must be voted on in the senate, though, without any amendment, cannot be altered in any way, and this is concerning to me. virtually every deal we have seen this year has been filled with promises of savings, but when you analyze them, the savings are not nearly as real as promised. so we don't need one more plan with tax hikes that never go away and promises of spending cuts that don't materialize or aren't continued. indeed, the debt limit deal which produced the budget control act this summer claims to contain a spending cap. but that is not accurate. it's a phony cap. the cuts that matter most are in many respects those that take place right away, of course, but

after all that fussing and drama, we ended up with a deal that cut discretionary spending by only a paltry $7 billion from fiscal year 2012 discretionary budget. so -- 2011 discretionary budget. so to put this number in perspective, the total outlays for 2011 are $145 billion greater than 2010, and our deficit is nearly $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1,300 billion dollars deficit. nevertheless, $7 billion in discretionary cuts at least is real, a step, however small, in the right direction, right?

we're supposed to spend spend $1,043,000,000,000 dollars this year, down from the 150 billion in discretionary spending expected. unfortunately, this -- or last year. unfortunately, this is just one more empty promise because the bill was rushed through, this budget control act in the 11th hour of the 59th minute, nobody knew that there was a gimmick in it at the time. here's how it worked. the budget control act created a cap adjustment for disaster relief funding. that's what they called it. it took a ten-year average for emergency spending and estimated that to be $11.3 billion for 2012. but this $11.3 billion in the

budget control act is a new fund and it is spent by regular appropriations, not by 60 votes as in the past for emergency spending, and it is above the the $1,043 billion figure. so the truth is the bill is not and never was $1,043,000,000,000 as promised, a limit on spending to that amount, but $1,054 billion. spending, therefore, for discretionary accounts this year will be larger than last year. and the writers of the bill went on further. they changed the senate rule in this budget control act that was passed at the 59th minute of the 11th hour to eliminate the 60-vote rule even for emergency spending above the

$11.3 billion. so they have a 60-vote point of order which has been used here over the years to challenge a designation as an emergency spending has been stripped as part of a bill denominated as a budget control act. so the new fund can be spent, this $11.3 billion, at any time as a normal appropriation, as if it were within the budget and without any 60-vote requirement. this eliminates pressure to stay within the budget or to offset annual disaster spending as we have been attempting to do, a number of us has in recent years. for instance, if you have $2 billion in disaster spending as part of a particular appropriation instead of eliminating $2 billion in waste somewhere else in the budget to keep your total spending within the budget, you have a free access to the $11 billion fund and don't have to worry about

offsetting a penny. you also don't need a vote for disaster funding approval. so this little offset issue has grown as a tribute to the effectiveness of senator tom coburn who has been fighting to offset so-called emergency spending designations and the 60-vote requirement to pass an emergency bill gave him some leverage and ability to challenge that spending and challenge the appropriators to try to find offsets for the new spending. so i think we might call this, instead of the budget control act, the coburn control act. i don't think it's a step forward for us. so the real spending cap now is is $1,054 billion, $4 billion more than what we spent last year. and if you want to spend even

more than that, you need to go through an emergency designation process, but you don't need 60 votes even for that. so the irony here is there was widespread belief in this chamber that we needed to tighten emergency spending designations. it was being abused. to give one unbelievable example, the senate counted $210 million in the routine funding for the census as an emergency spending, and the census is in the constitution, it's required to be conducted every ten years. how in the world can we say this is an unexpected emergency spending? it's as routine as anything can possibly be. but it was done because otherwise you would need to cut spending by $200 million somewhere else. but the budget control act has succeeded in actually weakening the standard for emergency spending and creates just one more loophole for the spenders.

again, the effect of the $11 billion fund is that it effectively nullifies the cap that we were promised. and the appropriating committee will have no incentive to achieve savings when they can spend every penny of the 1,043 billion base budget, knowing there is still another $11 billion to be spent when they run through the first part. so the evidence of this is before our very eyes to this point in one form or another. seven appropriation bills have come before the senate floor. four of them have been voted on and passed. energy and water bill is before us this week. we should be -- have been considering each of these bills individually, doing our due diligence on each one, but we haven't. we have moved in group, but i am

glad that this bill, energy and water, will be considered on its own, not bundled with others. the bad news is that the seven bills we have seen on the floor so far have already increased spending by $9 billion of the $11 billion for disaster, and we are well on our way to using every cent of the $11 billion because we have six more bills to pass. so the energy and water bill on the floor now increased its spending over the budget amount by $1 billion. that may seem small in washington terms, but that kind of thinking is the reason we're going broke. a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it's real money. if we can't even reach the paltry goal honestly of a $7 billion reduction in

spending, how on earth can we tackle our $15 trillion debt? $15 trillion dollar debt. federal welfare spending is now about $700 billion a year, $700 billion a year in the total welfare programs is more than $900 billion when you count state obligations or contributions that they make to these programs. food stamps are the fastest growing major item in the welfare budget. they have quadrupled in ten years. there are -- the food stamp program is one of 18 federal nutritional support programs in the budget, one of 18. the number of people receiving food stamps has climbed from about one in 50 when the program began to almost one in seven

today. some of the more than 45 million people receiving food stamps exceed the program's eligibility requirements. they have higher income or higher assets than you're supposed to have to qualify, but they receive the benefits because they get them as a reciprocal benefit for other federal benefits that they get. they qualify for one program. they are categorically therefore entitled to food stamp programs even though they don't meet the basic requirements. and reports of fraud and abuse are widespread. we were promised recommendations by the chairwoman of the agriculture committee for how the super committee could achieve savings in the agriculture budget, of which food stamps is the largest component of the entire agriculture budget by far, dwarfing other expenditures like aid to farmers. they were supposed to arrive, the senator promised, by november 1, but we have not seen

that yet. so the sad truth is our democratic-led senate has not met its responsibility to help this nation confront its most serious threat, and that is the debt we have. it's the greatest economic danger of our time as we have repeatedly been warned. if we also fail to control federal spending, which has nearly doubled in ten years, we will experience a debt crisis that leads to loss of jobs, loss of growth and loss of economic opportunity. such a crisis will hurt those with less income the most. it's our duty to stop the occurrence of this very preventable tragedy. instead of the irresponsible spending favored by the political class, it's time for

washington to be more accountable, to focus on the middle class. that means creating jobs through the private sector, producing more american energy, keeping our wealth at home, making the government lean and productive, a servant of the american people, confronting our dangerously rising debt which threatens our economy and jobs, adopting a globally competitive tax code, upholding the rule of law and trade, eliminating unwise, damaging regulations, and finally delivering the good people of this country the honest and responsible budget they deserve. mr. president, we have got a long way to go. i'm disappointed that we can't even comply with the intense of the budget control act passed this summer. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i have four unanimous consent requests. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session, they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. you,

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 340erbs for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the super committee which we all talk about and meets mostly in secret and is putting out plans and ideas, some i'm sure good to deal with the deficit, some a little less good and i'm

concerned about one thing that the super committee has been talking -- that stories have come out, i know that about, and that is something called the chained consumer price index. i know that conservative politicians in this body and down the hall this the house of representatives, many of them have advocated that we change the consumer price index to something called the consumer price -- the chained consumer price index. the way the consumer price index is calculated is especially important for senior citizens because their social security cost of living adjustment, called the cola, the c-o-l-a is predicated on how the cost of living is calculated. right now the cost of living is called -- the cost of living adjustment is paced on the consumer price index dash w which means it's determined by

wages, the -- the cost of living for people in the workplace. it's not determined by the cost of living for retirees even though it affects what retirees get in their cost of living adjustment. now, that sounds like a lod lot of words but here's what that means. when you figure the average increase in the cost of living for the american people and you're only looking at those who are employed, they're more likely to be in their 20's, 30's, their 40's, their 50's, maybe early 60s or a little older. and if you're only looking at that, the cost of health care is a less significant cost for them in their daily expenses and monthly expenses and their annual expenses than for someone who is retired. so i'm going to introduce legislation soon that will change the cost of living, the consumer price index w, wages, to the consumer price index e for elderly. and the reason is because if

you're 70 years old, your cost of living is much more fueled by the cost of health care than if you're 30 years old. so my view, mr. president, i know senator mikulski has been a real leader in this, one of the prime cosponsors of our legislation, she's had a terrific record, the senior senator from maryland in fighting for fair play, strong social security and medicare system against these -- these plans from conservatives around here to take social security and turn it over to wall street, to take medicare and turn it over to the insurance companies. but our -- our legislation would -- would make it fairer so that seniors would actually tweal have a cost of living adjustment based on their cost of living. what's wrong with that? instead, conservatives around here want to go the other direction, which would reduce the cost of living adjustment by this thing called a chained c.p.i. the way it works in a nutshell is this: if your cost of living is $100 a week and the chained -- you could save money

instead of eating beef, could you save money by changing to chicken, so they are saying under this chained c.p.i. that you should change to chicken and save x number of dollars so your cost would be less. what this would mean and i want to read you some statistics. if conservatives, anti-social security conservatives around here get their way, it will mean that senior citizens will get sick clayton less than they -- significantly less than they would under the way it works now let alone the way we want to change it to, the c. piemplet-e. it would mean seniors by the age of 85 would be gettings this -- about $1,000 less in their social security. that's just not something we can do. here's exactly the numbers. under the chained c. piemplet, a kip cal 65-year-old would get

$136 less today than -- that would be $165 less under chained c.p.i. than under the c.p.i. calculated today. a typical 75-year-old because this is calculated each year, soates little bit like the reverse of compounding interest. a 70-year-old would get $560 less a year, an 80-year-old would get $984 less per year and a 95-year-old would get $1,392 less a year. what conservative politicians want to do, mr. president, -- you've been on the right side of it from minnesota before you became to the senate, too, is what the conservatives want to do is cut the cost of living adjustment even more. the last two years there was no cola, there was no cost of living adjustment for seniors seniors. what conservative republicans and on the super committee, they're arguing, instead -- you should have got a cut.

the way we do the ceel now is too much money for seniors. this is not -- social security is not part of the budget deficit, it is not the problem, it doesn't need fixing in terms of -- of course we always need to make sure social security is viable and it will be for decades in the future, we can make minor adjustments. but in the name of cutting the budget cutting social security cost of living adjustment, and this really affects poor seniors and middle-income seniors. we know in my state of ohio and the presiding officer's state of minnesota that social security more than half the people in my state get more than half their income from social security. so we have no business cutting social security. my legislation would actually be a fairer reflection of the cost of living and so preferable to what some people in this body and some people in the house of representatives and in the super committee want to do to do the so-called chained c.p.i. it's a terrible idea, it's not

fair to our seniors, not fair to our country. it's something that should be rejected out of hand, and then as we figure this out and move forward we should think about do we want to do the c.p.i.-e. based on elderly cost of living not the c.p.i.-w. based on a 35-year-old's cost of living and how that's reflected. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. manchin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. manchin: suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise to speak about an honorable, dedicated public servant and a good friend from west virginia who lost -- who we

lost last month on october 29. jackson was a true west virginian born in our southern coalfields and a small town in lincoln county on may 30, 1918. throughout his 93 years, lloyd jackson always answered the call of service, whether it was for our great nation or for the beautiful people of west virginia. lloyd is the type of person who was well-thought-of by everyone who met him. from my own personal experience with lloyd, i can say that i had the utmost respect for his humanitarian approach to every problem, most importantly for his professionalism. lloyd's love for country and deep commitment to public service started when he was a young man and enlisted in the united states army, and in 1941 during world war ii. before he left the military, lloyd rose to the rank of master sergeant. after returning from the war, lloyd's commitment to his beloved family and public service continued. he pursued and expanded his

family's oil and gas business and through his business, he created good-paying jobs and touched the lives of countless west virginians. in 1946, he was elected to serve in the west virginia state senate, representing his home region of boone, lincoln, and logan counties. that same year, a manuel known to this body, senator robert c. byrd, was elected to the west virginia house of delegates and joined lloyd jackson in the west virginia senate in 1950. the two became lifelong friends. for nearly 25 years, lloyd jackson represented the people of the southern part of our state with the utmost distinction. lloyd was known for his leadership qualities as a state senator, and he took an active role in national legislative organizations like the national council of state legislators and the council of state governments. his peers recognized his leadership abilities and made him president of the west virginia senate. as senate president, lloyd

demonstrated true characteristics of a dedicated public servant, leadership, passion, commitment and persistence. lloyd g. jackson will forever be remembered for his many years of unwavering service to the mountain state and its people. however, lloyd will also be remembered for his passion and dedication to his community and for touching the lives of so many. he was a faithful member of the century united methodist church in hamlin. lloyd was a loving husband of nearly 63 years to pauline and a caring father of two children, suzanne rabin of eugene, oregon, and lloyd, ii of hamlin, west virginia, and the proud grandfather of lloyd, iii and ryan. gail and i are keeping his wife pauline and the entire jackson family in our hearts and prayers. while we know that lloyd jackson is gone, his legacy of public service and compassion for the people of west virginia will live in our hearts forever.

thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: g officer: the

senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: i thank the president. i want to talk about four amendments -- the speaker pro tempore: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. blunt: i would move that we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i want to talk about the four amendments i've filed on this bill and i'll say up front all four supported by my missouri colleague, senator mccaskill so they're a bipartisan amendment. two of them would deal with a property ownership issue created by an infringement by federal regulators by ferc. they both deal with a private power generating dam that was

built in 1931, it created a lake called the lake of the ozarks. and over the years private property owners have constructed literally thousands of homes that on this map beside me are impacted. the houses are the red dots, the other areas, and there are thousands of buildings of one kind or another on a lake that is one of the most used lakes in the country, and some people go to those houses on the weekend and a lot of people live there all the time. this is, mr. president, their home. since the 1950's, the lake of the ozarks has been the most visited lake by boaters in the midwest, it's a lake that's owned by the federal government, tourism at -- not owned by the federal government. tourism total $200 million amly and because of this tourist industry there's lots of private

investment. in 2004, amern electric, the current owner of the lake, it was built, again, in the 1930's by union electric that later became amern electric, they applied to ferc to renew their license to generate power at bagnell dam, which was built to impound the water that created the lake of the ozarks. this application also made sure that virtually all of the homes and structures would no longer be subject to the federal electric regulatory commission, but ferc rejected this request. the result has been a back-and-forth between amern and ferc and the property owners for the past seven years. this finger pointing by everybody involved except the property openers, who simply think they own the property, has been nothing short of outrageous, and it's left

property values, businesses, tourism, tax revenues, and jobs in question. ferc has taken its role too far. ferc is acting like they're the corps of engineers and somehow the taxpayers of america own this property instead of the taxpayers who actually are the individual taxpayers that own the property. every acre of land covered by water has been -- taxes have been paid. property taxes have been paid on that land since the first dream that this lake would be created. so 80 years of taxpayer money, this is not a corps of engineers lake where ferc -- where the corps of engineers can say we own the lake, we own the shoreland, we're going to decide what you're going to do, but ferc has taken its role too far and it's engaging in a pattern of enforcing shoreline management rules. so my first amendment would

simply modify the federal power act by changing the definition of what could be considered a project purpose. currently, ferc recognizes public recreational use of land but not private ownership. we wouldn't say they could no longer recognize public recreational use of land, but we would say that they have to recognize private ownership. if ferc at a lake like this can decide access some to the lapped, why can't ferc or some other federal agency drive by a farmer's farm and say that's a nice pond, i bet it's got fish in, why don't we ensure everybody who wants access to that farmer's pond has access to that farmer's pond? maybe i shouldn't suggest that. maybe federal agency just heard that and said it's a good idea, it's water, pleasant, people could enjoy it. everybody ought to be able to enjoy it just like the people

that have built the pond and own the property and do their work. my amendment would stop ferc from putting the commission's policy preferences above those of ratepayers and private landowners in licensing this dam. my second amendment would simply just redescraw draw the boundaries of the lake of the ozarks to reflect the 662-foot contour as necessitated by changing water levels over the past 80 years. it would limit ferc's ability to issue an order to remove structures in what they now consider a project boundary until that boundary has been more finally settled. it would limit ferc's ability to reject applications as long as power generation is still preserved. the purpose of ferc is to see a power generating dam generates power. it's not to control everything that is behind that dam.

that is not the job of ferc. in fact, let me leave those two amendments with a few stories of missouri home openers who shared their stories with me about how ferc and ferc's actions are feangting their lives pacific northwest -- affecting their lives. this is a 30-year-old house that these homeowners have paid property taxes on for 30 years. back if you can see this large pine tree in front of this house, it was a speed lin seedln they started paying property taxes. and that's a big tree. and they paid property taxes the whole time. it is their first home. it's their only home. and they've been informed that they are within the bagnal dam boundary, meaning they risk losing their house. in fact, it's one of 17 homes in subdivision facing the same problem. in another home, fred and barbara lothrop purchased this home 15 years ago. it was built 35 years ago. so, mr. president, these are not

new homes that somebody has just put on this property in the last couple of years and ferc's come in and said oh, you made a mistake. this is a 35-year-old home that the current owners have lived in for 15 years. barbara shared this with me on facebook. she said, "we've been paying taxes and upkeep on our homes and -- and new homes have been built around us within the last two years with permits and titles. these homes are not cabins. a majority of people live here year-round. we have our money invested in these properties in good faith when we bought them." this is according to the owner. "when we bought them, going through the right procedures and thinking you are a property owner for over 16 years, then being told your deed isn't worth the paper it's written on is something you can't understand how this can happen in the u.s. a. please, really feel bully" --

this is the facebook note continued -- "really feel bullied by the ferc agency and amren. ." we owe it to the citizens involved here to see that the federal government doesn't come in and just simply take their property. it's not fair. imagine, you get a new job somewhere, this is your home. you can't sell the home and buy to a new home because ferc suddenly decided after 16 years of paying taxes that your land is not owned by you even though the -- the county tax collectors thought it's been owned by you the whole time. let me discuss quickly the other two amendments that deal with flood control. the missouri and the mississippi river have both been impacted dramatically by flooding this year. in holt county alone, there was an -- there was an astonishing 165,000 acres underwater, most of it for three and four months. in bird's pointed, in the boot heel of missouri, another

130,000 additional acres of farmland underwater. so in total, we had over 400,000 acres, 600 square miles, something about the entire state of rhode island, underwater during parts of this year. vital transportation corridor haves been closed, highways washed out, businesses shut do down and people have been dealing with this now for months. my first amendment, amendment number 976, cuts the bureaucratic red tape if all you're doing is putting back something that was there before the flood. if you're rebuilding a levee, if you're doing -- if you're putting back things that were there before the flood, to rebuild levees or locks or dams that were damaged by the flood, you should just be able to do it. you shouldn't have to go through all kinds of studies to decide if the levee that you're putting back right like it was and where it was can be there again.

this is the only chance we have to get these structures back in place before the 2012 flooding season starts. and, of course, the 2012 wouldn't have to be a flood this size to create great problems if the levee's already gone. and that's what that amendment would do, mr. president. it gives the corps the tools they need to restore flood protection to the 2011 levels hopefully before the 2012 runoff season begins. and then my second and the fourth amendment i want to talk about, amendment number 975, restricts funding of the missouri river fish and wildlife recovery program to $22 million. now, this still leaves a lot of money for that program but it takes the other money that's been available for that program all year and makes it available to meet the critical flood-control crisis.

we've already spent more than $616 million on that program. this is essentially a program that is one of the big projects is that the government buys land from willing sellers who want to let it -- who want to let it become more of a wetland, a wildlife preserve, something like that. i'm not saying that willing sellers shouldn't be able to do that. but i'm saying for right now, $22 million, not something more like $72 million, is enough. in fact, we've had citizens in some of these counties calling the -- counties call the corps and to be told truthfully, no, we don't have sufficient funds to restore the flood protection you're eligible to but we could buy your farm. now, just imagine if you're on the other end that have call and you're a family farm and you're making a call, what can do you about the levee, what can do you to get our flood protection ba back, and they say, well, we can't do anything about the levee but we could buy your fa farm. so if you want to go back to the kitchen table and decide if you

just want to sell out, the taxpayers of plenty of money to buy your farm but, no, we don't have money to restore the levee that was protecting your farm just a few days ago. mr. president, that's not acceptable. that's why senator mccaskill and i are cosponsoring all four of these amendments. we recognize that these issues are critically important in our state. and, in fact, in the missouri river, the last two amendments, they're critically important in the seven states that start in montana and end in st. louis, missouri, that are impacted by flooding in all seven of those states this year. i hope we are able to consider these amendments and i hope my colleagues will join me in trying to do the right thing for the people that we're sent here to work for. and i would yield back and suggest that we may not have a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that adam christensen, a congressional science -- i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. thank you very much. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i ask unanimous consent that adam christensen, a congressional science fellow assigned to my office, be

granted floor privileges during consideration of this bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

hatch mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i scught that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague, my good friend from wyoming, senator barrasso, for his work on this and other issues related tto the president's health law. i have nothing but respect for him. as a former medical liability defense lawyer defending doctors, nurses, and other health care providers, i real lauerppreciate really good doctors and this is one good doctor. he and dr. coburn are two of the best people i've known and great credits to the profession. i want to thank him for his work and this and other issues

related to the president's health care law. he has been tire unless his careful analysis and criticism of the law and i believe we are in agreement on the bill's fundamental laws. the president and his allies promise that the health care law would decrease costs. that is not going to happen. the so-called affordable care act is going to in fact drive up the cost of coverage and among the biggest reasons for this inflationary impact are the taxes that will be imposed on the american people to pay for the loss of $2.6 trillion in new spending. at the top of the list is the law's tax on health insurance. it is not clear to me how the cost of health insurance will be increased by taxing it. many people don't know that this tax exist. like most of the taxes in obama care, its implementation was conveniently delayed until after the 2012 election, presidential

election. but this tax is coming. it is going to hurt employers and employees. it is going to be a drag on our economy, and it is going to depress wages. so i am glad to be standing here with my friend, senator barrasso, as we introduce the jobs and premium protection act, a bill that repeals this onerous and counterproductive tax on workers and job creators. the president speaks about the need for congress to do something about jobs. we would go a long way by passing this legislation. unemployment in this country remains a full-blown crisis. millions are out of work and the 9% unemployment rate does not begin to capture the full extent of our jobs deficit. we need policies that will encourage businesses to invest and expand. yet the health law's insurance tax does just the opposite. according to a recent analysis, in just the first ten years the insurance tax would impose $87

billion in costs on businesses and their employees. revenue that could be spent on higher wages, new hires and capital investment. increasing jobs, and growing the economy. will instead go to pay this tax. and that is just a start. in the second decade, this tax will cost businesses and their employees $208 billion. it is important to understand how this insurance tax will work. starting in 20 14, health insurance companies will have to pay a tax based on their net premiums written in the fully insured market. this is the market where 87% of small businesses purchase their health insurance. it is the market where the self-employed and uninsured go to purchase insurance. who will pay this tax? someone has to pay it. contrary to the talking points that all too often come out of this administration, all of

these new mandates and regulations are not free. someone has to foot the bill. and ultimately it will be those least able to afford it that are paying it, primarily small businesses and their employees will be responsible for paying this tax. when the cost of coverage goes up due to this tax, employees will pay for it in lower wages or higher health care costs. according to a recent study, the average employee with a family plan will see his or her take-home pay reduced by $5,000 over the next decade because of this tax. the american people should remember that statistic the next time they hear their liberal supporters of the health care law talk about wage stagnation or income inequality. the cost of this tax will be felt by citizens even beyond those small businesses. the factories that lose orders because of their customers' health care costs are going up

will pay for this tax. and those searching for work will feel it too because money that could go to new wages for new employees will instead go to pay for this tax and increased health care costs for existing employees. now this tax will hit wide swathes of the american economy with millions of businesses and individuals impacted. started by -- a study by the national federation of independent businesses shows this tax alone will lead to a loss of 125,000 to 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. the legislation we're introducing will help to reverse this trend. ultimately all of obamacare must be repealed. i am fully commited to uprooting it in its entirety. it undermines our constitution and personal liberty. it exacerbates the nation's debt crisis by creating and expanding entitlement spending.

and it also undermines our economy, destroying existing jobs and preventing the creation of new ones. the people of utah and people all over the united states need a jobs agenda. repeal of the health insurance tax through the jobs and premium protection act we are introducing today would do much to address the scourge of unemployment and get our economy moving again. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, first i would like to congratulate and thank my khraoerbgs the senior senator from yew -- my colleague, the senior senator from utah for his continued leadership on the issue of health care. as the ranking member on the finance committee, he has been a stalwart and strong supporter in efforts to get health care for american people, health care

that they need from a doctor that they want at a price they can afford. and amazing in his fight against what this body and the house of representatives and what the president has forced on to the people all across this country, which to me has been bad for patients, bad for the providers for those patients, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, and terrible for the taxpayers. that's why week after week, mr. president, i come to the floor to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law and why i'm so pleased to be here with my colleague today to join in the introduction of this piece of legislation. because as people all around the country know who have listened to the many speeches during the debate on health care, that the president and democrats in washington promised the american people that this trillion-dollar health care spending law would

lower health insurance premiums. that's what the president promised, that health insurance premium costs would go down. the american people have now had 19 months to review what is in the health care law. they are finding out that the president and the washington democrats sold them a bill of goods. on september 27 of this year the kaiser family foundation issued its annual survey of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums. the report showed that employer-provided health insurance premiums rose, went up -- didn't go down but rose $1,303 for an average family last year alone. remember -- and we do -- the president repeatedly promised his health care law would reduce average annual family premiums by $2,500. the exact opposite of what the president has promised has occurred. the kaiser family foundation report shows significant premium

increases, not savings like the president promised. not only are premiums continuing to climb, but the president and washington democrats paid for their health care spending law by imposing billions of dollars in new taxes on american business and american consumers. independent experts agree. they agree that these taxes only serve to increase an individual, a family, or a small business' cost to buy medical coverage. specifically, section 9010 of the health care law creates a new over $60 billion tax on health insurance plans starting in 2014. the health care law slaps this tax on all health insurance companies based on net premiums -- net premiums -- in what is called the fully insured market. this means that the tax and

insurance company must pay as equal to the percent of their market share. the larger the insurance company's market share, the higher their annual health insurance tax becomes. the aggregate tax from 2014 is $8 billion, climbs to $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, eventually reaching over $14 billion in 2018. after that, the law mandates that the health insurance tax grow by premium inflation. more inflation, higher taxes. former congressional budget office director douglas holtz eakin released a study in march of this year estimating the health insurance tax could exceed $87 billion between now -- between 2014 and 2020. some on the other side of the aisle want to message this tax as a -- quote -- "health insurance fee." i would say to my friends all across this country, do not be

fooled. this new tax directly hits small businesses. the joint committee on taxation makes it clear that the insurance tax will be borne by consumers in the form of higher prices, by owners of firms in the form of lower profits, by employees of those firms in the form of lower wages, or by other suppliers to the firms in the form of lower payments. remember, this tax only hits health insurance companies that sell their products in a fully insured market. as we've learned and heard earlier on the senate floor, 87% of small businesses buy their health insurance in this market, this fully insured market. the fully insured market is also the place that uninsured individuals and the self-employed go when they need to purchase medical insurance.

insurance companies selling plans to individuals and small businesses are the ones that are hit with the tax. well, the new tax doesn't hit large self-insured businesses. ultimately uninsured individuals, small businesses and their employees are the ones who are going to end up paying this unfair tax. this new punitive tax will add hundreds of dollars to family and small business insurance premiums every year. now the wyoming blue cross-blue shield association tells me that a wyoming family of four, well, they'll see a premium increase because of this tax of over $300 in 2014. in 2018 that same wyoming family of four will see over a $500 premium increase as a result of the tax. these premium increases will have been passed through to consumers as a direct result of

this health care law's tax component, what the president and the democrats in this body have foisted on to the american public. additionally, the holtz-eakin march in 2001 study proves the health care tax will raise premiums by as much as 3% or over the next decade for a family of four, over nearly $5,000. what american family, i ask you, what american family can afford to see their take-home pay reduced by $5,000 over the next decade, thanks to the president's new tax? mr. president, the nation's unemployment rate stands at 9%. there are 14 million americans, people across our country unemployed looking for work, struggling american families cannot bear the brunt of president obama's new tax.

a recent study by the national federation of independent business found that the health insurance tax will force the private sector to shed somewhere between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. more than half of those jobs, mr. president, more than half of those job losses fall on the backs of small businesses. two million small businesses across this country cannot afford president obama's new tax. 26 million workers who get their insurance through their employer cannot afford president obama's new tax. and the 12 million people who buy health insurance plans on their own in the individual market cannot afford president obama's new tax. that is why today we introduce legislation called the jobs and premium protection act.

i introduce this bill along with my friend the ranking member of the senate finance committee, senator hatch. our legislation is simple and straightforward. it eliminates the health care laws' punitive tax on every individual, family and small business that chooses to do the right thing and to buy health insurance. unbelievably the health care law punishes individuals, punishes small businesses, the very two tkpwaoups who find buying -- groups who find buying health insurance at a low price challenging. why would the federal government make it harder by imposing a tax on the products these individuals buy? some must believe that insurers will simply be able to absorb the tax. well, experts tell us that that is assumption is false. here's what the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation said in a letter to senator jon kyl in june of this year.

said -- quote -- "we expect a very large portion." a very large portion, mr. president, "of the insurance industry fee to be passed forward to purchasers of insurance in the form of higher premiums." they go on to say, "eliminating this fee would decrease the average family premium in 2016 by $300 to $400." isn't that what we want, to lower the cost of insurance for individuals? this is the way to do it. finally the joint committee on taxation letter confirms that -- quote -- "repealing the health insurance industry fee would reduce the premium prices of plans offered by covered entities by 2% to 2.5%." mr. president, this ill-conceived, discriminatory tax must be eliminated. it must be stopped well before it starts to impact individuals, families, and small businesses.

our bill is a critical piece of probusiness legislation. it has the support of organizations, including the national federation of independent business, the u.s. chamber of commerce, blue cross-blue shield association, and america's health insurance plans. i would urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the cost of insurance for families of america, who are shocked and surprised on the other side of the aisle, some in disbelief that what the president promised the american people of a reduction in premiums wasn't true, and who want to try to in a little way right that wrong. the way to do it is by cosponsoring and supporting the jobs and premium assistance act. and so i thank you, mr. president, and i thank the ranking member of the senate finance committee, senator hatch. specifically senator hatch for his leadership and for joining me in introducing this legislation today. the time has come to eliminate a

bad policy that not only increases health insurance costs but also negatively impacts americans' job creators. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and recommend the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: north dakota. the presiding officer: north dakota, excuse me. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. i rise in support of amendment 1045 to h.r. 2354 which is the energy and water appropriations legislation. this amendment rebalances funding for the fossil energy research and development account in the u.s. department of energy from within the existing budget. i want to point out that results in no additional spending.

it's simply an adjustment within the existing budget. now, you may have heard recently about the tremendous progress we're making in the state of north dakota when it comes to oil and gas development. we're also developing many of our other energy resources as well. over the past decade, through a comprehensive energy plan called empower north dakota that we've put together, we've advanced all of our energy resources in tandem and done wit good environmental stewardship. that includes coal, wind, biofuels and of course oil and gas. in a little more than a decade, north dakota has grown from the ninth to the fourth largest oil and gas producing state in the country, having surpassed oil producing states like oklahoma and louisiana. if our current estimates are on target, we will soon pass california and become the third

largest oil producing state in the nation. that growth is a product of pro-growth, and regulatory environment that we've built with the right kind of pro-business policies. at the same time we've also as i say, developed a comprehensive approach and a comprehensive energy policy called empower north dakota. in addition, we've put in place cutting-edge research which is also -- has also been a very important part of our energy strategy for the state. and it was new technologies and methods like directional drilling, a product of innovative research over the past decade that tapped the abundant petroleum reserves of the bachan formation and other shale formations in north dakota's oil patch. directional drilling has not only enabled the recovery of oil in hard-to-reach vertical layers of shale but it's also enabled multiple well bores to be dprild

a single pad. -- drilled from a single pad. the result is more oil but also a much smaller environmental footprint. that's good for the energy industry, that's good for the environment, and that's good for american workers with tremendous job creation and, of course, for our consumers. now, mr. president my amendment would redirect research dollars within the budget of the fossil energy research and development provision in this appropriation bill and that would include that 5 million would be provided for at national -- excuse me, natural gas technologies, research and development, and also $10 million would be provided for the unconventional oil or fossil energy technology development. both of these, research and development areas, are very critically important not only for more energy development but,

again, for doing it in an environmentally sound way. because this $15 million is offset with funds from within the fossil energy research and development's own budget, it results in no net change, no additional expenditure to the account. obviously with our deficit and our debt, that's very important. what the amendment will do is empower research into the next generation of petroleum and natural gas technologies, helping to produce more energy, again, with better environmental stewardship. this amendment will fund research in a range of important areas including using carbon die dye oxide to enhance oil recovery in mature oil fields and reducing the environmental impact of natural gas on oil development. notably, this research will continue to drive and develop new technologies for gas stream purchaseification to acheer near

zero atmospheric emissions and economic as well as environmental goals. in short, had is the kind of research that will help to increase our supplies of domestic energy, reduce our reliance on foreign energy and foreign sources and hold down the cost of energy for american consumers and american businesses. all with better environmental stewardship. this amendment will help us do all of these things and much more, and i ask for my colleagues' support. also, mr. president, while i have the floor i would like to express my support for two other amendments to house resolution 2354. these include amendment number 975 and all of a sudden amendment number 976. both of these amendments i am pleased to have cosponsored with senator roy blunt of missouri. as you're well aware,

mr. president, there has been expensive flooding along the missouri river over the course of this past year. all the way from montana and north dakota and up ther basin all the way down through the state of missouri and the other lower basin states. as a result, we've been working very hard with our citizens to recover from that flooding. one of the things that we have pressed the corps of engineers to do as aggressively as we can is to provide more flood protection so that we not only help our citizens recover from the flooding this year but so we do all we can to prevent flooding next year. so at the same time that we're pressing them to take all of the preventive measures they can to reduce lake levels, reduce reservoir levels so we have adequate room and protection to prevent flooding neck year, we -- next year, we are working within their budget to make sure they have the resources to address these needs.

amendment 975 essentially takes $50 million that is within the corps of engineers budget that is now used for missouri river recovery program, meaning things like building sand bars and some of the riparian areas along the river. currently there's a total of $72 million in that account. what we're saying, $50 million of that should be made available so that they can utilize it to enhance flood protection. this is a critical need right now. they're working dill gently to repair dams, dikes, and levies. we're pressing them to do more as far as preparing water levels through the upper and lower basin and at the same time we are providing the assistance in their budget by giving them the flexibility to use dollars where they need to to enhance flood

protection. this is $50 million within their budget that can be used to enhance flood protection. i strongly urge my colleagues to support amendment number 975 to the house resolution 2354. again, giving the corps of engineers needed flexibility to provide that flood protection that is so important to people all along the missouri river in both the upper basin and the lower basin. amendment number 976 essentially provides that same flexibility and assistance, essentially it eliminates the red tape. it prevents the corps from having to get new permits, new licenses or new approvals as they work to repair and restore levies, locks, and dams. as they work along the missouri river, the entire length of the missouri river to restore those flood protection measures, whether it's a levy --, levee, a dock, whatever it may

be, we are waiving those to get new permits and new approvals so they can get that work done now, this year, and preeb paired for next year. again, the flooding has been devastating and expensive along the missouri river and in my home states it's not just the missouri river but the cirrus river, we've just had a terrible time with flooding. we need to take the kind of steps that will help our people recover but will also help us prepare for the future so that we don't face those types of floods next year or any other year in the future. again, i encourage support from my colleagues on these very important amendments and, mr. president, i thank you for this time. i will yield the floor at this point. i note the absence of a quorum and so i would request a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. a senator: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. i was just listening to the news in my office and heard the report that the united states had gone over $15 trillion in debt. mr. demint: of course, that's just our short-term debt. it doesn't really include our unfunded liabilities which some estimate to be $100 trillion. but nevertheless, $15 trillion is the size of our total economy, a condition that would mean certain bankruptcy for almost any business. all all of us in these chambers have stood in awe, i guess, looking across the atlantic at grease and italy and some of -- at greece and italy and some of our european trading partners. it seems amazing to us that despite their terrible fiscal condition, the politicians in greece cannot even cut spending. they talk about cutting it, but the government employees are out in the street demonstrating, and

you just to think, can't they see what's happening? why do they want to keep spending? it's like there's an addiction. here we're in the land of the free, the city on the hill a as far at country that sets the example, here we are in a situation where we have to borrow well over $100 billion every month just to keep the lights on in this place, just to keep our country going. and all year long we've been having these public showdowns about how we need to cut spending. we've threatened government shutdowns over the continuing resolutions and over increasing the debt limit. you would think by this point we would be cutting spending to some degree. we've established this

supercommittee, supposedly to deal with our huge deficits. yet we're passing spending bills this week, today, that increase spending versus last year. and last year we spent 5% more than the year before. in reality, in some ways our country is worse off than europe. because we have federal debt, we have state debt, we have municipal debt, we have counties declaring bankruptcy, we've states approaching bankruptcy. yet we continue to spend more now than we did last year, after all of the fuss and fighting and brinksmanship, supercommittees ... we can't seem to cut anything here. in fact, we're increasing spending. and the goal of the supercommittee is not to cut spending.

it's not to cut our debt at all. the goal of the supercommittee is to reduce the amount we're going to borrow over ten years. maybe reduce it from $10 trillion to $8 trillion or $9 trillion. we're not even on the same page with reality right now. and we've increased spending so dramatically over the last few years -- we've added $4 trillion to our debt since president obama came into office and passed trillion dollar stimulus. we passed obama care adding $1 trillion of spending, and we're spending. and instead of talking about cutting, the debate now seems to be, how can we take from the american people in taxes to feed our addiction? and we focused our guns on those very people who create our jobs and create most of the opportunity in our country, people who are already paying

the largest portion of national taxes of any country in the world, because we've shifted so much of the tax burden onto the top income earners, and we're blaming them for the wealth gap when in fact the real blame for the wealth gap comes from the government taking so much out of the private sector, regulating with such a heavy hand, having the highest corporate tax rate -- or the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. the problem is a a federal government that disns understand that the more we spend and borrow, the fewer jobs there will be in our country today. yet that's the big argument here. instead of cutting spending, we're actually talking about taking more from hardworking american taxpayers and bringing it in here and giving it to the people that created that $15 trillion in debt. how could anyone make sense of that?

it's really pretty amazing after all the promises we've made to the american people that we're watching our debt go up like this, passing $15 trillion. and we still can't talk about any substantive cut. let me give you one example of something that makes so much sense. over the last two decades we've seen welfare spending increase nearly 300%. there's 77 means-tested welfare programs. over the last couple of decades, since welfare reform, the spending has increased nearly 300%. now, that's more than the combined increase of social security and medicare. it's more than the increases in education or in defense. and are we helping people? not at all. we've got more people in poverty

than we ever have. and we're discouraging self-sufficiency while encouraging dependency on government. in the last four years alone, we've nearly doubled what we're paying for food stamps, from $40 billion to $80 billion in this year's budget. if all we did was return welfare spending to 2007 levels, we could save almost $2.5 trillion over the next ten years. that's twice the goal of the supercommittee of cuts. but are we even thinking about it? is it even on the table? absolutely not. because the one thing of a seen with this place is we're very good at getting bipartisan agreement on increasing spending in areas of need. but you seldom see bipartisan agreement on any cuts. would we look at responsible

caps on welfare spending? not even a chance. it's not even on the table with the supercommittee discussions. with medicaid alone, if we return spending to 2007 levels, we could save more than the goal of the supercommittee of $1.2 trillion. but we're not willing to discuss cuts. i think it's a sad day for america that we're plowing past $15 trillion, freendzin pretende responsible to the american people while this week and next week and on into the rest of the year we're going to be passing spending years that spend more than we spent last year. we're still in a recession, many are tightening their belts, many are out of work. and we're taking more from hardworking, tax-paying americans so we can keep our

spending addiction going here in washington. it is utterly irresponsible what we're doing. and the president, all he can do is point at those who he calls millionaires who are generally the people who are creating the jobs, running the small businesses, and having the most to do with creating the investment that makes our economy grow and trying to blame them for the problems that we create here in washington. it's time we keep our promises to the american people. i know it's hard for some in these chambers to cut spending because dependency on government often means a dependable vote for many politicians. it's time we look at the future and debt that we're loading onto ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. this country will not survive the type of policies that we're producing here in washington today. this supercommittee should look at real cuts in spending.

if our democrat colleagues are not willing to go along with responsible spending caps on programs like welfare, then we need to walk away from the table and take our case to the american people and tell them what is really the truth, that 2012 -- the elections in 2012 may be our last chance to turn this thing around. we cannot keep spending at this level and keep taking more and more from the private sector, from the job producers in our country, bringing it here to washington and spending it on wasteful programs fraught with fraud and duplication. and not even ever consider cutting any of it. last week dr. coburn had a couple of amendments to an appropriations bill that had some very small cuts that had been deemed wasteful, ineffective programs. on one of his amendments he only got 13 votes. so this is clearly a bipartisan problem. we need to cut spending. washington has a spending

problem. it does not have a low tax problem. and it's time we focus our attention on reducing the size and scope of the federal government and have it live within the constitutional boundaries, limit programs that are wasteful, return others it the state, trim our budget to the point where we can pay for what we're spending, so that we will not keep adding trillions and trillions of debt onto our country and it our citizens and our next generation. thank you, madam president. i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

alaska -- mr. akaka: madam president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i may speak as though in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: madam president, as chairman of the committee on indian affairs, i am sponsoring a resolution cosponsored by majority leader reid, vice

chairman barrasso and several members of the committee designating november as native american heritage month, and november 25 of this year as native american heritage day. this resolution recognizes the contributions of native americans. we see the influence of the iroquois confederacy on the founding fathers of our country as they drafted the constitution. and today native american contributions in modern agriculture, medicine, music, language and art are undeniable. in that tradition of service, native americans have had the highest representation per capita in our armed forces in every war since world war ii.

as a veteran of world war ii and as a native hawaiian, i celebrate the heroic work of the kotokas and countless american military victories that were achieved in both world wars with unbreakable military code founded on indigenous languages and cultures. as we reflect on native american heritage month, it is important to remember our history and the promises we made. it is time to account for those promises kept and unkept. as a nation, we're built on the highest principles our founding fathers embraced equality, liberty and justice and

incorporated them in the very fabric of our constitution. they contemplated the unique role of indigenous peoples in our country and acknowledged their sovereignty in article 1, section 8, of the constitution. the founding fathers set a high standard as americans and as members of this body. it is our duty to continue to legislate policies in keeping with our founding principles. for this reason, i applaud president obama's recent commitment of u.s. support for the united nations declaration and the rights of indigenous people. an international standard that i have been championing for more than a decade. and the committee on indian -- in the committee on indian

affairs, i held an oversight hearing on domestic policy implications of the declaration. we found that while the united states is a world leader, in recognizing and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, there is more work to do. the rights of self-determination and self-governance contained in the declaration are american ideas, ones that we have been embraced as official federal policy for more than 45 years. i am committed to working with my colleagues to enact legislation that gives real meaning to the high principles expressed in the united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. in the united states, november,

native american heritage month is a time when we reflect and give thanks, and i encourage my fellow americans to learn more about the native peoples of this land and celebrate native american heritage day on the day after thanksgiving. as we honor the contributions of native americans, let us recommit ourselves to the high principles of self-determination and self-governance and strive for what is just and right for all including our first americans. madam president, i yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: