John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Hayden True for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Hayden is a native of Casper, WY. He currently attends Casper College, where he is studying science and medicine. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Hayden for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Thomas Mapes for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Thomas is a graduate of the University of Colorado, where he received a bachelor's degree in economics. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Thomas for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Andrew Newbold for his hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs Office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Andrew resides in Rock Springs, WY, and attends Western Wyoming Community College, where he is studying public administration. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Andrew for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Adam Stahl for his hard work as an intern in my Republican Policy Committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office. Adam is from Guilford, CT, and a graduate of the University of Rochester, where he majored in history. He recently received a Master of Philosophy, Russian, and East European Studies degree from the University of Oxford. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Adam for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Matthew Brown for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office. Matthew is from Laramie, WY, and a graduate of Laramie High School. He received a degree in history from the University of Wyoming. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Matthew for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Alyssa Vollmer for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Alyssa is a native of Hanna, WY, and a graduate of Hanna-Elk Mountain Junior/Senior High School. She currently attends Casper College, where she is studying political science. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Alyssa for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, soon we will be debating the future of ObamaCare. The American people have told us they want Congress to repeal this so-called health care law. They told us to start over with real health care reform. This actually shouldn't be a very controversial vote. It is clear, even to the law's supporters, that the Obama health care law has not worked out in any way they had specifically expected. The ObamaCare health care law is collapsing, whether the President wants to admit it or not. Democrats should really be eager to join us to help fix the damage that has been done by this law. So far they have been much more focused on protecting President Obama's legacy than on protecting the American people and the health of the American people from ObamaCare. Last month President Obama did a radio show in which he was asked about the law and about problems with the law because people all across the country are seeing significant problems with the law. The President would not admit to a single problem with this law. He insisted: ``It has been a success.'' Well, I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I am a doctor. I practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, and the people whom I talk to--my patients, my neighbors, people all around the State, and the people whom I run into in my travels--do not consider ObamaCare a success. Democrats come to the floor and say: It is OK that insurance rates are rising. Remember when the President said they would go down by $2,500 per family? The Democrats say it is OK that the insurance rates are rising because they say the rates also went up before the law. What they won't tell you is that premiums aren't just going up a little; they are going up a lot next year. Actually, they are going through the roof. There was a study by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform. They found that the median increase for the bronze plans went up 13 percent from this year to next year. That is just the average. That means for half of the people, they are going to pay more than that. The silver plan is up 11 percent, the platinum plan is up 12 percent, and the gold plan is up 15 percent. These double-digit price increases are not a success. Democrats have come to the floor and have talked about some of the people who have gotten insurance coverage since the law took effect. What they won't tell you is that having insurance coverage is not the same thing as getting medical care. The New York Times ran an article about 2 weeks ago with this headline: ``Many Say High Deductibles Make Their Health Law Insurance All But Useless.'' They don't even call it health insurance. They call it health law insurance because it is insurance to comply with the law and not to actually give you the health care. It is astonishing. Even the New York Times calls it health law insurance. The article tells the story about David Reines from Jefferson Township, NJ. He is 60 years old and has a history of chronic knee pain. This man says: ``The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to a doctor.'' He says: ``We have insurance, but can't afford to use it.'' President Obama, this is not a success. Democrats who support the health care law say that it created these marketplaces where people can shop for insurance. What they won't tell you is that companies have been pulling out of the marketplaces and exchanges all across the country. More than half of the State co-ops have gone out of business and have failed. The largest health insurance company in America says that it may drop out of the program entirely next year. In Wyoming, there is just one company participating in the ObamaCare exchange. That is the choice on the Wyoming exchange--one. Does President Obama consider that a success? Democrats say a lot of people like their insurance plans. Well, they won't tell you about the Gallup poll last month that found that the American people are far from happy. Just 33 percent of Americans said that the health care coverage in this country is either excellent or good--one out of three. Only one out of five is satisfied with the total cost of their health care. Now, both of these numbers are worse than they were when President Obama took office. When asked: How are you going now compared to where you were when Barack Obama moved into the White House, people will tell you that when it comes to health care, it is worse. Another survey last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that just 38 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the health care law. Is that the way President Obama measures success? Is that what he calls a success? Why won't the Democrats come to the floor and talk about these surveys? Democrats come down to the floor and say that ObamaCare has put millions of people on Medicaid. I am not sure how many of them have a full understanding of Medicaid. As a doctor who practiced medicine for 24 years, I can tell you a lot about Medicaid. They won't say anything about this failed program. They won't admit to the fact that Medicaid is a failed program. A new study last month found that cancer patients with Medicaid in California--we have 2 Senators from California who voted for this law-- are less likely to get recommended treatment and they have a lower survival rate than people with other types of insurance. The Democrats celebrate the fact that they have all of these new people on Medicaid. This is not a success. Democrats don't want to talk about any of this. Nobody on this side of the aisle is denying that there are people who have been helped by the health care law. Why won't any Democrat come to the floor of the Senate and admit that for every person who has benefited, someone else may have been harmed and may have suffered? Why won't Democrats admit and the President admit that the law has not lived up to their promises? Why did we need a 2,000-page law that upended the entire health care system in this country basically to expand the broken Medicaid program? None of this had to happen. None of this is what people were asking for when Democrats wrote their law behind closed doors back there. It is certainly not what people are asking for today. This health care law has been expensive, disruptive, and devastating. It is headed for collapse, and if Democrats won't admit it, then they are just kidding themselves. Republicans are ready to move on with a better approach. We will work to lower costs and make insurance affordable for all Americans. We will make sure that people who need insurance can actually get usable insurance. That means making coverage equal care. That is what it should do. Coverage ought to equal care. We will give people freedom, flexibility, and choice to allow patients to make the decisions that are best for them and their family--not Washington and President Obama telling them what is best for them and their family. Those people will be making those decisions for themselves. We will protect consumers by making insurance predictable and stable so people don't have to switch their coverage and their doctor every year. Finally, we are going to fix Washington by making Medicare and Medicaid stronger for people who will absolutely rely on these programs. President Obama and Democrats in Congress do have a choice. They can join with Republicans in accepting the inevitable. They can act now to reform our health care system in a way that works or they can stand by and watch as the wheels continue to come off of ObamaCare. The program is collapsing, and it is unavoidable. Congress should not allow this health care law to harm the American people for one day longer. Democrats should work with us to create a replacement that actually delivers care, not just unusable coverage. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5:15 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is fascinating to listen to my colleague and friend from Rhode Island because I have the National Journal Daily printed today. It has back-to-back pages talking about the terror, the horror in Paris. Obviously the thoughts and heartfelt condolences of the people of this country continue to go out to our friends in France, who have stood by us, and we will stand by them. One page talks about how President Obama has continued to underestimate ISIS. This is in today's paper, quoting President Obama, saying: ``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' The President has continued to underestimate ISIS. The other side of the page: ``ISIS vs. Climate Change.'' It talks about the Democratic debate Saturday night--national television--after the tragic events in Paris the night before. The moderator asked one of the leading Democrats running for President--running second in the polls now--if that candidate had a chance to back off on his claims that climate change is the greatest security threat facing the country. That candidate said: ``In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.'' That is the position I just heard from the Senator from Rhode Island. It is a position we hear from a leading candidate for President on the Democratic side of the aisle. I would wonder how many Americans believe that who--if they heard that statement, believe that is true. That is why I come to the floor today to talk about President Obama's plans--his plans to tear down the American energy reliability, American energy stability, things that are important for our national security, because he wants to remake energy into a form he prefers. The President has a strategy to do it. He has made it clear. He said that when he was running for President in 2008. He bragged that his plan--he said if it went through, that ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' And ever since then, President Obama has been pushing to make that happen, even though he couldn't get it passed. When he tried to get part of his plan through Congress, even the Democrats rejected it. They knew that the American people didn't want it and that the American economy couldn't afford it. Did President Obama listen to the American people? Absolutely not. Did he accept the overwhelming judgment of Congress--a bipartisan approach-- that his extreme attacks on American energy were a bad idea? No, he didn't listen to that, either. The President is much more interested in the opinion of far-left, extreme environmentalists than he is in the opinion of hard-working Americans. He has done everything he can to give his plans the effect of law without asking Congress to actually pass them as laws. He has had his Environmental Protection Agency draw up regulations--regulations that would shut down American energy producers and damage our own economy. That is what the President's own Energy Information Administration has said. The agency put out a report--a report that found that the EPA's new rule on carbon dioxide emissions would close coal-fired powerplants, would raise electricity prices, and would reduce the gross domestic product of our Nation. That is just one of many rules this administration has been pushing into force without legal support. Every one of these rules will mean hard-working Americans will lose their jobs and hard-working families will be paying higher electric bills. Put it all together, and the price tag could reach hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is asking President Obama to do this? Who is asking to pay more in their electric bill every month? People don't want it, and the President doesn't have the authority to do it. That is why he is not asking Congress to weigh in on his plans. That is why he is pushing these rules by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats instead of going to the people and their representatives. The American people do have a voice, and they are making their voice heard through us today. We are here talking about two rules in particular. These are the restrictions on existing powerplants and on new powerplants, plants that haven't even been built yet. These are the core of what the President calls his Clean Power Plan. We are here to say today that these rules go too far. The Obama administration has tried this before. It has pushed through other regulations that people didn't want and can't afford. The administration has said that it gets to decide what is best, that it gets to decide what people should do. The courts legitimately have said: not so fast. This summer, the Supreme Court rejected a different EPA rule because the administration never bothered--this is what the Court said--to take into account the costs of the rule. The Supreme Court said: ``One would not say that it is even rational''--this is the Supreme Court talking about the President's rules; it isn't even rational--``never mind `appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.'' Two courts have blocked the EPA's rule on waters of the United States. One of the courts said that the rule was likely the result of ``a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a reasoned process.'' All of these rules are suffering from the same kinds of problems. The Obama administration, once again, has been acting far beyond its own authority and far beyond anything that is rational or appropriate for our Nation. The same day that President Obama put out the new rule on his so-called Clean Power Plan, 26 States filed lawsuits in Federal court to stop the disastrous rule. Twenty-three States sued to block the rule on new powerplants. Twenty-seven States have sued to block the rule on existing powerplants. I believe these States are going to win in court because the rules are so extreme and this administration is so out of control. President Obama doesn't really care about any of that. He thinks he still wins even when he loses in court. He thinks if he can drag it out long enough, businesses will have to spend the money and comply anyway. That is actually what the President's EPA chief said before the last regulation got rejected by the Supreme Court. She went on television a few days before the decision and said that it didn't matter what the Supreme Court said. She said that it didn't matter if the administration loses because the rule has already been in place for 3 years. That is exactly what the Obama administration is counting on this time as well. That is why it is so important that Congress act today to block these rules from taking effect. We are debating the two measures that will do that. The measure by Senator McConnell and Senator Manchin--this is bipartisan--would block the rule for new powerplants, and the second measure by Senator Capito and Senator Heitkamp--again, a Republican and Democrat working together--would block the rule for existing powerplants. These are bipartisan resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. They are our chance for Congress to stand up for the people that we represent. America can't afford these illegal rules to go into effect and be there for 3 years before the Court tosses them out. There is another reason that Congress needs to vote to strike down these expensive, burdensome regulations immediately. Later this month, the President will be participating in the international talks on climate change. This is a meeting of about 200 countries from around the world to limit the amount of carbon dioxide and other emissions that each country can produce. The President desperately wants his so-called Clean Power Plan so people will say he is leading on the issue. Without these illegal regulations, he has nothing to offer. Congress needs to make clear that the American people do not support these regulations. Foreign diplomats at the climate conference need to understand that these rules will not stand up in court. President Obama's ego is writing checks that his administration can't cash. Any climate deal based on these flawed rules is simply not worth the paper it is printed on. It is time for President Obama to be honest about what he can and cannot do. If he will not admit that, then Congress is going to have to make it clear so that everyone understands. The American people do have a voice. They will not allow these reckless and destructive regulations to shut down American energy production. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Shaheen for 10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes, Senator Nelson for 10 minutes, and finally Senator Manchin for 10 minutes; that following Senator Manchin's remarks, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings, and that the time in recess count against the majority time on the CRA.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 9:30 A.M.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Putin's Invasion of Ukraine and the Propaganda that Threatens Europe.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Data Brokers--Is Consumers' Information Secure?''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, with this vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, the Senate really has a unique opportunity today to pass a strong bipartisan bill--a bill that will direct the EPA to write a reasonable rule to protect our navigable waterways. As I mentioned before, I introduced this legislation with my Democratic colleagues Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin, as well as many of my Republican colleagues. I appreciate all my colleagues who spoke out in favor of this legislation. Let me just conclude this discussion with these thoughts. Our beautiful rivers and lakes deserve protection, and this bill does nothing to block legitimate efforts to safeguard the waters of the United States. By striking the right balance, we will restore Washington's attention to the country's traditional waterways, protecting these cherished natural resources. At the same time, we will give certainty to farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that they can use their property reasonably without fear of constant Washington intervention. The existing rule on waters of the United States is the poster child of EPA overreach. The courts have already begun to weigh in with their concerns and have stayed the rule nationally. There is a great legal uncertainty about whether this waters of the United States rule will survive these legal challenges. These challenges could take years. Meanwhile, a long-term viable solution to protecting our waterways will not be in place. Now, many of my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--and particularly those from rural States--have talked about their concern with this rule, so I urge them to join with us today by showing their constituents they are ready to do something about it. I urge them to vote for this motion to proceed to S. 1140 and to work with me through an open amendment process to create an even better bill--a better bipartisan bill and a bill that gives the EPA the certainty they need to craft a rule to protect our Nation's waterways for the long term. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity today to move this legislation. It is bipartisan, and it protects our environment and helps small businesses all across the country. S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, is legislation I introduced, along with a number of Democratic Senators--Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin--and many other Senators. The Senator from California previously spoke. I would point out that the California Chamber of Commerce supports my legislation and the California Farm Bureau supports my legislation because this legislation will protect our Nation's navigable waters and the streams and wetlands that help our navigable waters stay clean. This bill is a testament to the hard work both sides of the aisle have done in achieving an agreement on an environmental protection bill. Our rivers, our lakes, our wetlands, and all other waterways are among America's most treasured resources. In my home State of Wyoming, we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world--the Snake River, the Wind River, and dozens of others. People from around the world come to Wyoming to visit because we have an environmental landscape that is second to none. Anyone who has come to my State and experienced Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton, and the Big Horn Mountains comes away with a sense that Wyoming is a pristine and beautiful place. It is what Wyoming sells, and it is what makes Wyoming so unique. The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping our waterways safe. We want to preserve the water for our children and grandchildren. We understand there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while respecting the difference between State waters and Federal waters. This is the environmental legacy that my constituents want, and it is a legacy they have earned for their decades of sound management. It is the people of Wyoming who have kept Wyoming's waterways pristine and beautiful. The EPA has now released new rules. The new rule is called the waters of the United States rule, WOTUS. This rule doesn't work for the people of Wyoming. It most likely doesn't work for any of your constituents, either--certainly not for those who have to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. The courts have begun to weigh in with their concerns about this WOTUS rule, and they have actually given Congress and stakeholders a necessary pause. That is why we are here today. In August of this year, Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota issued an injunction that blocked the waters of the United States rule in 13 States. He did it because the rulemaking record was, in the judge's words, ``inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a reasoned process.'' With regard to the rationale behind the EPA's threshold for what is and is not Federal water, he stated: ``On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard only because the Agencies say it is.'' The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals then put a nationwide stay on the rule on October 9 of this year. In granting the stay, the court said, ``The sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rule's definitional changes counsel strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being.'' So keep it as it is for the time being. The court added that ``a stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new Rule and whether they will survive legal testing.'' So what the courts have basically done is said: Let Congress have time to act. We don't have to sit on the sidelines and watch this rule slowly crumble under legal scrutiny. Contrary to some activist groups' rhetoric, we are not facing an immediate environmental water pollution crisis. In fact, in granting the stay, the Sixth Court stated that ``neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation's water will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented and enforced.'' They even called it a ``scheme.'' We now have the opportunity to do better, and to do better, we must act now. That is why we must take this opportunity to pass the legislation before us that will have EPA do a new rule under a specific set of principles outlined by Congress. These are principles that protect navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, as well as farmers, ranchers, and other landowners. I know some Senators gave the administration the benefit of the doubt with this rule despite concerns they heard from their constituents, and those Senators waited for the final result before making a judgment to see if those concerns would be addressed. I am here to say that whatever concessions the EPA says they made to address some of these serious problems raised by their proposed rule, the EPA added new provisions in the final rule that greatly expand their authority. This is disappointing because I believe the great majority of Senators voiced concerns in the process, and those concerns fell on deaf ears. The EPA has produced a final rule worse than the one originally proposed. Here is an example. Instead of clarifying the difference between a stream and an erosion on the land, the rule defines ``tributaries'' to include anyplace where EPA thinks--where EPA thinks--it sees an ``ordinary high-water mark.'' What looks like, not what is; what looks like, what they think is this ordinary high-water mark. Even worse, EPA proposes to make those decisions from sitting at their desks using aerial photographs, laser-generated images, claiming that a visit to the location is not necessary. Under the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency also has the power to regulate something as ``waters of the United States'' if it falls within a 100-year floodplain or if it is within 4,000 feet of a navigable water or a tributary and the EPA claims there is a ``significant nexus.'' What is a significant nexus? Under this rule, a ``significant nexus'' can mean a water feature that provides ``life cycle dependent aquatic habitat'' for a species. So if you are drawing 4,000-foot circles around anything the EPA defines or identifies as a tributary--remember, 4,000 feet, so we are talking over 13 football fields long, and everywhere there is a potential aquatic habitat. So essentially almost the entire United States, according to this, would be underwater. Actually, 100 percent of the State of Virginia is under this jurisdiction and 99.7 percent of the State of Missouri falls within this area--underwater, if you will, according to the EPA guidelines. I would like to take a moment to talk about puddles because one of the previous speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about puddles. People know what they think about when they think about a puddle--like when it rains. The final rule does exempt puddles defined as ``very small, shallow, and highly transitory pools of water that forms on pavement or uplands during or immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event.'' I guess that would mean like when the snow melts. The rule specifically does take control over other pools of water created by rain, like those we have all around Wyoming--prairie potholes, vernal pools--even if the land where these pools of water form is far away from any navigable water or even a tributary. Under this new regulation, nearly all of these pools of water created by rain will now be considered ``waters of the United States,'' giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate what you do on that land. These provisions are sweeping and will create uncertainty in communities all across the country. There is plenty that I have already outlined in the waters of the United States rule that is bad for agriculture, with the many methods it provides for federalizing previously State-controlled water. The States have made these decisions in the past. Now we are adding another level of government bureaucracy. This rule is bad for agriculture, for those people who produce our food. Farmers, ranchers, and others are used to working with their States to protect their land and water under their own stewardship. We heard from the Senator from California about groups opposing this, but 480 different groups support this bill, and they are major national groups: the American Farm Bureau, the Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Soybean Association, the American Sugar Alliance, the Milk Producers Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Turkey Federation, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the United Egg Producers, the USA Rice Federation. I could go on and on. These are the food producers of America. They support the legislation in front of the Senate today. The point is, not one State, not a single State in this country is out there that doesn't have a strong agriculture presence. We all do. So I urge all Senators to make sure, as they prepare to vote on this motion to proceed, that they check with their folks at home. I would also note that many industries outside of agriculture are concerned with the rule as well. These include manufacturers, homebuilders, small businesses--you name it. They are all very concerned with this rule, and they want Congress to act now. Action could mean Congress can pass a Congressional Review Act resolution, which will be considered possibly later in the process, but that would eliminate the WOTUS rule and prevent a substantially similar rule from being proposed. That would allow for a new rule as long as it was not substantially similar to the existing rule. We need to vote on this resolution. I believe S. 1140 is a better route, the one we have here today. This is a bipartisan compromise. This is the bill that has a number of Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle cosponsoring the legislation. Most importantly, this piece of legislation on the floor today allows for Congress to establish the principles--Congress to establish the principles--of what the new EPA would look like. I know a number of Democrats have ideas to improve the legislation that is on the floor today specific for their own States. If my colleagues vote to proceed to the motion to proceed at 2:30 this afternoon, we will have an open amendment process that would allow Members to improve S. 1140 in a bipartisan way. We are willing to work with anyone who wants to improve this rule in a bipartisan way. But let's not sit on the sidelines anymore. Rather than support an EPA final rule that actually makes it worse and was worse than the proposed rule--a rule that will likely not survive legal scrutiny based on what we saw from the courts, a rule that doesn't represent the interests of our farmers, ranchers, families, small businesses, and communities--let's move forward with the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act to ensure the public that we hear and we understand their concerns. At the same time, let's give EPA and the Army Corps the certainty they need to confidently move forward with a new rule--a rule that truly reflects the needs of the constituents we represent. Let's protect our Nation's waterways for the long term. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to recognize one of Wyoming's most generous groups, Cowboys Against Cancer. Founded in 1994 by cancer survivor Margaret Parry, Cowboys Against Cancer raises funds for residents of Sweetwater County who have been diagnosed with cancer. Touched by those who aided and encouraged her during her own battle with cancer, Margaret created Cowboys Against Cancer in order to provide the same comfort to those battling this awful disease. Margaret's mission--and that of Cowboys Against Cancer--is one of compassion and support. From offering the comfort of a shoulder to lean on to awarding grants to support overburdened individuals and families, Cowboys Against Cancer has waged a tireless battle against cancer. As a nonprofit volunteer organization, Cowboys Against Cancer is a proud group devoted exclusively to charity. The organization's volunteers work without compensation, and Cowboys Against Cancer employs no staff members. Without staff on the payroll, no office space, and very little overhead, the majority of the profits generated are donated directly to those in need. Since the organization's inception, Cowboys Against Cancer has given hundreds of grants to local cancer patients, including more than 150 grants in 2015 alone. In addition to these grants, the group has also worked to fund the development of cancer treatment infrastructure throughout Sweetwater County to better serve the regional population. This year marks the 21st and final Cowboys Against Cancer Annual Benefit and Banquet. Over 1,000 people will gather to both celebrate the memories of those who are no longer with us and recognize the exemplary courage and determination exhibited by cancer survivors. Including the donations raised from this capstone gala, Cowboys Against Cancer estimates that they will have awarded a total of $5 million of grants to folks in Wyoming. This is a remarkable achievement. Margaret has a tremendous team of volunteers who have helped her make this dream a reality. Over the years, dozens upon dozens of folks have worked for this great organization. I would like to recognize the current board of directors and the people who have volunteered for 10 years or more. The Cowboys Against Cancer board of directors are: Margaret Parry, president and founder; George Lemich, vice president and auction officer; Cindy Petersen, historian; Kristi Parry, secretary; Erika Kosher, banquet; Anita Punders, treasurer; Terry Warren, grant disbursements; Kathy Devoy, invitations and tickets; Cindy Rodriguez, advertising; and Geannie Berg, auction item data base. The kind, generous, and energetic volunteers who have lent a hand for over 10 years are Sandra DaRif, Danella ``Prune'' Devries, Pat Devoy, Debbie Gunn, Mary Hardy, Beth Ice, Mary Juel, Veldon Kraft, Don Melvin, Vance Petersen, Kyle and Patsy Rossetti, Becky Sanchez, Kelly Shablo, Bess Stevenson, Liz Strannigan, Tim Warren, and Donald Wiggen. Students from Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs High School, and Green River High School have always been generous with their time. And, finally, a special note of thanks to Al Harris who serves as the event's master of ceremonies. Please join me in offering my heartfelt congratulations to Margaret Parry and her Cowboys Against Cancer team for their efforts toward creating a cancer-free world. This organization has exemplified the nature of the cowboy spirit: tough, but neighborly. Sweetwater County-- and Wyoming--are better, thanks to the selfless contributions of Margaret Parry and Cowboys Against Cancer.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, back in August several western States and Indian tribes suffered an enormous environmental disaster. It has been called the Gold King Mine spill. In this disaster, the Environmental Protection Agency spilled 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado. This plume of toxic waste threatened people in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. It stretched to the land of the Navajo Nation and the southern Ute Indian Tribes. Last month, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee that looked at the spill. The EPA was there to testify. The EPA claimed that it was taking full responsibility, and then it did everything it could to deflect actual blame. They said they were taking full responsibility; then they did everything they could to deflect actual blame. The agency administrator actually told our committee that this spill was inevitable. She said it was ``inevitable.'' Does that sound like someone who is actually taking full responsibility? Well, last week we got the results of the investigation by the Department of Interior about what actually happened at the Gold King Mine. On Friday the Washington Post reported: ``EPA gets blame for mine spill into rivers.'' Well, according to this report, the EPA's crew didn't take engineering into account when it was working on the mine. It didn't take engineering into account. The agency didn't understand that waters in these mines, according to the report, ``can create hydraulic forces similar to a dam.'' How could the experts from the EPA, the U.S. Government's Environmental Protection Agency, not know that? The report also said that ``the conditions and actions that led to the Gold King Mine incident are not isolated or unique, and in fact are surprisingly prevalent.'' Remember, the EPA said it was inevitable. This spill was inevitable only because the EPA is so inept, so negligent, and so incompetent that it was inevitable the agency would cause a disaster like this someday, and now they have. It is inevitable that the agency is going to keep making the same mistakes unless something changes at this irresponsible, incompetent agency. What has changed? It has been almost 3 months since this disaster happened. The Environmental Protection Agency has not named a single person whom it is holding responsible for poisoning the river. If the EPA's incompetence is ``surprisingly prevalent,'' as the investigation found, you would think that this agency should be trying to get its house in order before it takes on new jobs. That is not what the Obama administration is doing. Oh, no, it is not slowing down at all. It is not slowing down in its quest for power or in finding more ways that it can control what people do. On Friday, the Obama administration published the final rule for what it calls its Clean Power Plan. This regulation would create more Washington control over how electricity is produced across the country. That very same day 26 States, including mine and that of the President's, filed lawsuits in Federal court to stop this disastrous rule. These States say that the Environmental Protection Agency went far beyond anything that the law allows and far beyond anything Congress ever intended. I completely agree. This rule is too expensive, it is too extensive, and it is too extreme. The EPA does have a job to do, and it is failing dramatically at its job. Instead of going back to basics and doing its job right, the EPA wants more power, more control, and less accountability. This so-called Clean Power Plan will cost billions of dollars. According to one estimate, it will destroy the jobs of more than 125,000 Americans. None of that seems to matter to the President of the United States or his administration and the EPA. They are driven by ideology, not by the facts, and their ideology is driven by their desire for more control. That is why it is so urgent that we focus our attention on all of the ways this Washington bureaucracy is trying to restrict people's freedom and take more control for themselves. The Obama administration isn't even satisfied telling States how to get their energy. Now the Obama administration wants to be involved in making these decisions for the whole world. It is trying to negotiate a climate change treaty that will impose broad new limits on American energy. This treaty will also do incredible damage to the American economy. At the same time, the administration wants to pay billions of American taxpayer dollars--hard-earned dollars--to other countries. In return for these other countries adopting green energy sources like solar panels, the Obama administration will help prop up their economies, not at their expense but at America's expense. It wants to do all of this behind closed doors without any oversight from Congress or the American people. The administration wants to make sure that nobody can do anything to stop it until after it is too late. It wants to tie the hands of the American economy, dole out billions of taxpayer dollars, and not even ask the American people if that is what they want. The U.S. Congress cannot stand for that. It is the wrong choice for America, and it is the wrong choice for the rest of the world as well. There was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday by Bjorn Lomborg. He is the director of a nonpartisan international group called the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The headline is ``This Child Doesn't Need a Solar Panel.'' It has a photo of a child in a slum in Mozambique. The author points out that the Obama administration is wrongly focused on the kind of climate change payoff that the President is promoting. In the op-ed he writes: This effectively means telling the world's worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria, or malnutrition, that what they really need isn't medicine, mosquito nets, or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news. He goes on: In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children's lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral. That is the assessment coming out of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The President's actions are immoral. There are some very real dangers facing the United States and other countries today, such as the threat from global terrorists and from countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. There are desperate humanitarian crises around the world. That is where the Obama administration should focus its foreign policy. Here at home, the EPA should be cleaning up the environment, not poisoning America's rivers and lakes. Until the Obama administration gets its priorities straight, Congress will have to act to stop it. Republicans have introduced legislation to block some of the administration's most egregious new rules. Senator Ernst has filed a resolution against the so-called waters of the United States or the WOTUS rule. I have introduced legislation to replace the WOTUS rule with one that actually protects waterways while preventing Washington's takeover of nonnavigable waterways. Senator McConnell and Senator Capito have filed resolutions against the extreme limits on powerplants. Senator Flake has filed one on the burdensome new ozone standard. We are going to keep a spotlight on this administration as it negotiates this new climate change treaty. We are going to stop it from committing this country to another bad deal--and the rest of us will be paying for that bad deal long after President Obama is out of office. Congress is going to hold the Obama administration accountable-- accountable--and rein in the Washington bureaucrats before they do additional damage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader and point out in today's New York Times, Wednesday, October 21, the big headline--``Insurance Out of Reach for Many, Despite Law.'' Despite this law, insurance is out of reach for many. I know my colleagues who were back home visiting with people around their home State last week, listening to what was on constituents' minds, heard exactly this--the problems of the health care law. I was at home in Wyoming, and I heard from a lot of people who are very concerned about President Obama's collapsing health care law. That is what this law is doing; it is collapsing. People in Wyoming learned that one insurance company--WINhealth--will no longer be selling insurance through the ObamaCare exchange in our State. The company said it had to stop selling ObamaCare plans because there was no way to make money without big taxpayer subsidies coming from Washington. This company was already planning to raise rates significantly next year, and it turns out that even that wasn't going to be enough money to make it worthwhile. In less than 2 weeks, ObamaCare exchanges across the country will start selling insurance for next year. The total number of companies left selling insurance in the exchange for the State of Wyoming will be exactly one--one. There will be no competition at all in the ObamaCare exchange. If your doctor doesn't take that insurance, you are out of luck. If you can't afford it, you are out of luck. Is that how ObamaCare was supposed to work? Is that what the President promised the American people? I got an email from one of my constituents yesterday--Al Harris, a great guy, in Green River, WY, and he wrote: ``HELP!!!!!!'' He said: ``WINHealth has become the latest casualty of ObamaCare.'' Al says that at his business ``I have about 30 people that now will have no insurance . . . at least not this insurance. I am scrambling with few options and I'm convinced any option will be substantially more expensive.'' Al said: ``This train wreck needs to be stopped.'' I agree. President Obama and Democrats in Congress made a mess of the health care system in our country, but they said they had a better way of doing things. They said they knew best how to create competition and how health care should operate in America. They created all these Washington mandates. They required people to buy expensive coverage that was more than most people wanted, needed or could afford. Then they created the exchanges where people could buy this new, expensive Washington-mandated insurance coverage. Now the people of Wyoming are left with one option on the ObamaCare exchange. Buy this insurance from this one company or the IRS will come knocking at your door to collect a big tax penalty. The penalty is going up next year. Because of the significant failures of the Obama administration, rural Americans now have fewer choices. It is not just in Wyoming. We learned last week that insurance co-ops in Colorado, Oregon, and Tennessee are all closing their doors. Why? Because they have lost so much money. Eight of the twenty-three health care co-ops in the country have collapsed, completely collapsed in the last couple of months. Co- ops have closed in New York, Kentucky--as the majority leader said--in Louisiana, in Nevada, in Iowa, and Nebraska. Many are in rural areas where people already don't have a lot of choice. We are talking about one-half million people who are going to lose their coverage, losing their insurance. Remember that promise President Obama made: If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. Where is the President now? The President says the health care law is working better than he even thought. Amazing. ObamaCare created these co-ops claiming to provide low-cost insurance. Then it saddled each of them with so many mandates and so many restrictions that they needed massive taxpayer bailouts. All together, these failed co-ops collected nearly $900 million already in taxpayer loans to get the help they needed to get going. That is how President Obama put this together. Now these co-ops have sunk, others are sinking, and they are taking the taxpayer loans with them. The ones that are trying to survive have been saying we are going to have to hike our rates. The co-op in Utah plans to raise its premiums by 58 percent starting in January just to be able to stay open. Is that what the President promised when he said rates would drop $2,500 per family? In Montana, the rates are set to go up 43 percent for some co-op plans. That is not what anyone in America needed, and it is certainly not what rural Americans need. President Obama said the American people were going to get more choices--more choices--because of his law instead of getting fewer choices. Yet he stands up and boldly says it is working better than he expected. ObamaCare created the illusion of coverage. Now even the illusion is disappearing. What is even worse for rural Americans is that it is not just the coverage that is turning out to be an illusion under ObamaCare. The care is actually disappearing. Earlier this month, we learned that Mercy Hospital in Independence, KY, will be closing soon. This is the 56th rural hospital to close in the United States since 2010 when ObamaCare became law. Another 238 hospitals are in danger of closing. The added expense, the regulations, and the other destructive side effects of ObamaCare are a big reason for this. The patients who rely on these hospitals will have to find some other place to go to get their medical care--somewhere further away from home. Democrats in Congress--many who live in big cities--may take for granted they can get to a hospital quickly. It is not the case in rural America. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, I can tell you that the extra time people spend traveling to a hospital can make all the difference in the world between life and death. For someone who has had a heart attack or has been in a traffic accident or for a woman with a high-risk pregnancy, every minute counts. Only 20 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, and these areas account for 60 percent of all trauma deaths. Americans living in these rural areas don't and didn't need President Obama making it tougher for their rural local hospital to stay open. Mercy Hospital was the center of medical care in the community for 100 years. It has provided jobs for nearly 200 people. In many parts of the country, such as in Independence, KS, and in much of my home State of Wyoming, the local hospital can be the biggest employer in the community. If the hospital closes, these people lose their jobs and the tax base for the community goes down, which means fewer services, such as schools, firefighters, and public safety, and maybe the local restaurant or florist won't have enough business to stay open. Nurses, teachers, and other workers may move away looking for a better opportunity somewhere else. It would also make it harder for the town to attract new businesses, new doctors, and more teachers, and the town suffers. That is what these communities across America are facing. Is that what President Obama promised the American people? Is that how ObamaCare was supposed to work? Ezekiel Emanuel is one of the President's architects of the health care law. He says that shutting down 56 hospitals is not enough. He has actually written a book about this. It is astonishing. The architect of the President's health care law has written a book, and he says that over the next few years--between now and 2020--more than 1,000 hospitals will close. There will be 1,000 American communities where people will be farther away from medical care. We will have 1,000 American towns in danger because of the lost jobs and lost health care. There is no dispute that we needed health care reform in this country. We did not need this destructive, disruptive, and dangerous ObamaCare law. It has been bad for patients, it has been bad for the providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and it has been terrible for the American taxpayers. It has been especially hard on rural communities. We have to do something to stop this corrosive condition that causes hospitals to close, insurance co-ops to collapse, and health care choices to disappear. Democrats in Congress need to sit down with Republicans and start talking about the kind of health care reforms that the American people need, want, and deserve. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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