John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last Friday the Obama administration released the latest numbers on unemployment and jobs, and once again, the numbers were grim. Experts predicted that our economy would create 200,000 new jobs in September. Instead, they fell woefully short. There were only 140,000 jobs, so they were about 60,000 jobs short. That is a big miss. It is nowhere near as many jobs as America's families need now. Here is how Investor's Business Daily put it in a headline on Monday, October 5, ``Private Hiring Pace Is Worst In 3 Years; Labor Force Shrinks.'' Wages have gone almost nowhere for 6 years. They actually declined in September. We have had 74 straight months with wage growth below 2 and a \1/2\ percent. Before the recession, we routinely had 3 percent growth month after month, but President Obama seems to be satisfied with this limping progress. Over the weekend, he bragged about how many jobs have been created while he has been President. Is missing expectations good enough for President Obama? It is not good enough for me. It is not good enough to get the economic growth that we need in this country and that we should have coming out of a recession. One of the very big reasons for this slow growth is due to all of the regulations that this administration has piled onto the backs of American families. Since 2009, this administration has come out with more than 2,500 new regulations. According to the American Action Forum, the total cost of all of these new regulations--this new red tape--is about $680 billion. That is more than $2,100 for every man, woman, and child in America right now. According to the World Bank, the United States is 46th in the world in terms of how easy it is to start a business. Is 46th in the world good enough? Maybe it is good enough for President Obama, but I don't think it is good enough for the American people. All of these regulations make it very tough for someone to start a business right now. It is also tough for existing businesses to create new jobs. Last week, the energy company Royal Dutch Shell announced that it was going to suspend drilling for oil off the coast of Alaska. They said one of the reasons was ``the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.'' Too much regulation is making it too difficult to produce the American energy and American jobs that we need. Unelected, unaccountable Washington bureaucrats have been having a field day at the expense of our economy. As the Obama administration runs down, it is in a race to get even more rules on the books. Just last week the administration announced three big new regulations. On Tuesday, the EPA finalized a rule on oil refineries. It is going to require refineries to install new equipment and spend more money on something other than creating jobs and paying higher wages to their workers. It is estimated that the rule could cost up to $1 billion and provide very little in the way of health benefits. On Wednesday, the EPA finalized more limits on coal, gas, and nuclear powerplants. Just like Tuesday's rule, this one will cost another one- half billion dollars a year. The rule sets the unacceptable amounts of some emissions at zero. Finally, on Thursday the EPA released a new limit on ozone in the air. The limit was 75 parts per billion, and they cut it to 70 parts per billion. This is a tiny change--we are talking about parts per billion--but that tiny change is going to cost more than $2 billion a year once the rule is in full effect. Huge chunks of the country are going to have to adjust to meet the new standard, and the benefit is minuscule. Farms and small manufacturing companies will have to buy new equipment or change the way they do things. States and cities will have to change how they do local transportation projects. All of that adds up to lost jobs and even less economic growth than we have had in the past 6 years. These are huge effects, all to chase another few tiny parts per billion of ozone. Five parts per billion is the equivalent of 5 seconds over 32 years. That is how small it is, but the costs are enormous. Over the course of three days last week, three new regulations have been added. They will cost our economy billions of dollars at a time when the private-hiring pace is at its worst in 3 years and the labor force shrinks. We all agree that reasonable regulations make good sense. In the 1960s and 1970s, regulations helped to clean up pollution in our air, land, and water, but now Washington bureaucrats are chasing after smaller and smaller trace amounts of chemicals no matter what the cost, how high the cost, or how insignificant the benefits. The EPA issued one rule that I found hard to believe. I thought it was a misprint, but it is not. They issued one rule that would cost $9.6 billion per year to administer. What are the benefits? Only $4 million. I thought they had misspelled and misplaced the ``b'' and the ``m,'' but, no. It will cost $9.6 billion and will produce only $4 million in direct benefits. That is as much as $2,400 in costs for every $1 in benefits. How can they do this? I am talking about direct benefits. The EPA tried to say: Well, there are all sorts of what they called ancillary benefits. Who gets to decide how much these are worth? Apparently the Obama administration says that it does. It is no surprise that this administration cooks up an imaginary number for those theoretical benefits--not direct benefits, but their ``ancillary'' benefits, and they say it is big enough to balance the very real costs that American families feel. It is all a way to justify these ridiculous rules that destroy jobs, restrict freedom, and do very little good for Americans. It is Washington and this administration run amok. Is the Obama administration trying to make sure our economy continues to limp along as it has for the past 6\1/2\ years? Is that what they want? In 1972, the Clean Water Act was meant to protect navigable waters. It was reasonable. We want to protect our navigable waters. Today the administration has a new water rule called waters of the United States. It is going to give Washington bureaucrats control over everything from irrigation ditches to small natural ponds in someone's backyard. This is unreasonable. Where does it end? Bipartisan majorities in the Congress already say it needs to end now. I have introduced a bill that would direct the Obama administration to come up with a new rule on waters of the United States--one that protects traditional navigable water from pollution, which we must do, but it also protects farmers, ranchers, and private landowners. We can do both. This legislation has 46 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. We are telling the Obama administration that enough is enough. Republicans are also ready to take on some of these other outrageous rules such as the extreme new restrictions on powerplants. That is what Congress is going to be doing to stop the insanity of these out-of- control regulations and out-of-control regulators. We need to cut through the redtape. Americans want to get back to work. They want to get our economy going again. Congress needs to help them do it because this administration certainly is not. The Obama administration basically needs to get out of the way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the American people have gotten used to hearing bad news about their health care ever since the Democrats passed ObamaCare. It seems that each and every day there is another headline about another way that the health care law is hurting people. Last Wednesday there was a remarkable amount of bad news in just 1 day. The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, September 23, had this headline: ``Health Insurers Defend Deals.'' If you flip the page over, the bottom half of that page has ``Cost of a family health plan tops $17,000'' with a chart of rising costs. The annual cost of an employer family health coverage, the portion paid by workers, continues to go up--1 day, one page. The top article is about a wave of health insurance company mergers which we have been seeing recently. Now, the President said that his health care law would actually increase competition among insurance companies. But just like a lot of the other predictions that President Obama made, this one has not come true. You know, back in June, the insurance company Aetna announced plans to buy Humana. Then the company Anthem decided to buy Cigna. Now, if these mergers are approved and continue to go through, it means that the five largest insurance companies in the United States will now be down to three. The President said there would be more competition. Well, Americans are about to have much less competition. It is not only because of the giant insurance company mergers. You know, ObamaCare also set up health co-ops in 24 States. Now, these co- ops were supposed to add competition to help keep prices down. Taxpayers put up almost $2.5 billion to help these companies get started. Over the past few months, what has happened? These co-ops have been dropping like flies. Just the other day, regulators in New York shut down the largest ObamaCare co-op in the country. Why? Because it lost so much money. Now 215,000 New Yorkers have fewer options for where they can go to buy Washington-mandated insurance. This is the fourth co-op to fail in the past few months. Another one failed right before it. It had not even enrolled a single person. Think of that: Government loans set up a co-op that doesn't enroll anyone and closes shop. There is only one co-op of the original 24 that is actually making any money so it can stay in business. Look, the American people know they are not getting the increased competition the President has promised. They also know they are not getting the lower prices the President has promised. Another article came out last Wednesday that talked about how much more Americans are paying for their health care. This was a September 23 New York Times headline: ``Health insurance deductibles rising faster than wages.'' ``Health insurance deductibles rising faster than wages.'' Here it is--unaffordable care. This is from 2010 to 2015. Wages are up 10 percent, premiums up 24 percent, deductibles up 67 percent. The article describes a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. According to Kaiser, health insurance premiums for a single person have gone up more than twice as fast as people's earnings since ObamaCare became law. We are talking about all of the people that get their health insurance through work, which is about 150 million Americans. This is not just a small group of people. This is all of the people that get their insurance through work. Deductibles have gone up almost seven times as much as earnings. It is an enormous hit to the finances of American families. The article talked about how these high deductibles are hurting a woman named Beth Landrum. She is 52. She is a teacher. The articles says that about 2 years ago, ``Beth saw the deductible on her family's plan increase to $3,300 a year.'' She is a teacher. She is 52--$3,300 a year for the deductible under Obama's health care law. So a couple years ago was when a lot of these ObamaCare mandates were really starting to bite. The woman survived a brain tumor 10 years ago. So here she is. She has insurance. She had a brain tumor 10 years ago, successfully treated, but she is putting off having the MRI that has been recommended by her doctor. She says: ``My doctor's mad at me because I haven't had the MRI.'' They want to see if there is any recurrence of the tumor. She said that she and her husband need to save up money to pay for the test, to pay for the deductible--the $3,300 deductible. She has health insurance under ObamaCare, and she can no longer afford to get care--coverage without care. The President continues to ignore this fact about his unaffordable health care law. You cannot afford to get care, not under ObamaCare. Now, President Obama promised that people would save $2,500 per family per year under the health care law. But average premiums are up nearly $4,000 since the law passed. Does the President really believe it is affordable? The new study by Kaiser only looked at insurance that people get, as I say, through their jobs. It did not look at the deductibles people are paying when they buy their own insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges. President Obama said that these plans would be cheaper than a cell phone bill. That is what he said--cheaper than a cell phone--easier to use than Amazon for shopping on the web and cheaper than a cell phone. Well, let's take a look at the article in the New York Times. That is not how it has worked out for Rebecca Bullard. Now, Rebecca is 27. She purchased her plan through her State exchange for $129 a month. To get that plan, she had to accept a deductible of $6,000. But she has ObamaCare. Oh yeah, the President can say: I did her a favor--a $6,000 deductible. The article says that when she was worried that she had a cracked rib--do you know how she chose to take care of it? She chose to ask friends on social media about what to do rather than go to a doctor because of the ObamaCare that was actually not worth very much to her. That is how concerned she was about paying the out-of-pocket costs that ObamaCare brought her. She said, ``Now I don't even want to go to the doctor.'' Is that what the President promised the American people--deductibles so high that people don't even want to go to their doctor? People may have coverage, but they cannot afford care. It is unaffordable under the President's plan and mandates. People are paying more and they are getting less. So it is not surprising that this administration is starting to worry. They have to figure out how to convince people that it is worth signing up for this outrageously expensive ObamaCare insurance. That is what the Wall Street Journal said in another article on September 23. There is a picture of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell. There is a picture of her right here on this page. It says: ``Insuring More People Seen as Tough.'' According to this article, the Secretary of Health and Human Services says that ``this open enrollment is going to be tougher than last year.'' We know it is going to be tough for families who are getting hit with higher premiums and other costs. Now, the Obama administration isn't worried about these people; what the Obama administration is now worried about is how tough it is going to be to sign up enough customers for this awful law. You know, by now they were supposed to have 21 million people signed up for ObamaCare by next year. Right now they have fewer than 10 million. They are not even halfway to where they need to be and where they said they would be. What this means is if they don't get more young, healthy customers to sign up, this whole system is likely to collapse. That is why the Obama administration is worried. They are worried about the impacts of their ability to sustain this law. There is a reason that people haven't signed up. The people who haven't signed up yet know this insurance is not a good deal for them. It is not good for them personally; it is not worth it. About half of the people who still don't have insurance have less than $100 in savings. How is someone with less than $100 in savings supposed to pay a $6,000 deductible? Why won't the President answer these questions? Why won't the Democrats come to this floor and answer these questions? I haven't seen a Democrat come to address these issues or any of these headlines. Look, President Obama promised the American people that his health care law would produce lower costs and produce more choice. Instead, he has given people fewer choices, more powerful insurance companies, higher deductibles, and higher premiums. We have had too many of these alarming headlines--and that is in just 1 day alone--and too much bad news about ObamaCare. The American people get it. It is a bad deal for them personally. President Obama is a lameduck. He forced a terrible program through Congress. It is time for Democrats in Congress to sit down with Republicans and start talking about the kinds of health care reforms that the American people need, that the American people want, and that the American people deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the Wyoming Nurses Association is honoring Casper nurse practitioner Mary Behrens with the 2015 Lifetime Achievement award. I am delighted to congratulate Mary on this tremendous honor. Following in the footsteps of her mother, Mary pursued her passion for service by completing her RN at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1964. She practiced as a nurse in Madison while her husband Jerry finished his medical degree and residency. She remained in Madison as Jerry served our Nation as a physician treating wounded soldiers in Vietnam. In 1973, the couple moved to Casper, WY. Folks in Wyoming are fortunate that Mary chose to dedicate her career helping others in our State. She is truly an innovator, leader, and mentor for many nurses in Wyoming across the Nation and around the world. The list of Mary's accomplishments and awards is long. She was active on the American Nurses Association board and is a board member of the University of Wyoming's Friends of the Fay W. Whitney School of Nursing. She is one of only three Wyoming nurses to be nationally recognized as a fellow of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, FAANP. Her leadership in this area is incredible. In 2005 she was a member of the American delegation to the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, where she testified on the national nursing shortage. In addition, through her involvement with the Friendship Bridge program, Mary is credited with helping to establish an education pathway for nurses in Vietnam. Her efforts to develop a modern baccalaureate curriculum have had a tremendous impact on the global scope of nursing, particularly in Vietnam and neighboring countries. Mary's civic service is not at all limited to her profession. In fact, she has an established history as a public servant for both Casper and Wyoming. Mary served on the Casper city council and as mayor of Casper. She was also a Natrona county commissioner and a representative in the Wyoming State Legislature. This experience, and her intense desire to make change, has made a profound impact on our State. Mary's extensive activity in shaping public policy truly stands alone, as few people possess such a wide breadth of policy knowledge, leadership skills, and passion for the nursing profession. It is fitting that the Wyoming Nurses Association is honoring Mary Behrens with their most prestigious award. Countless patients and nursing students have benefitted from her leadership and care. The nursing profession is stronger because of Mary's enthusiastic advocacy. Please join me in thanking Mary Behrens for her lifetime investment in nursing. Bobbi and I are truly fortunate to call her our friend.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week a bipartisan majority of Senators--Members of this body--voted to try to stop President Obama's dangerous and desperate deal with Iran--that is right, dangerous and desperate. The President wants to give Iran relief from the economic sanctions the world imposed. I believe President Obama traded away these sanctions too readily and he got too little in return. These sanctions included limits on the sale of Iranian oil. According to one estimate, Iran could soon begin to export as many as 1 million additional barrels of oil each and every day. I know the money Iran makes from these sales will go to shoring up its economy, and it will go to building up Iran's military. Some of it will undoubtedly go to supporting global terrorists. That is what President Obama traded away. Iran will be allowed to sell its oil anywhere in the world, yet American oil producers are largely prohibited from selling American oil anywhere in the world. Apparently, that is exactly the way the White House wants to keep things. There is legislation working its way through Congress right now to lift the ban on American crude oil exports. The Obama administration has said it doesn't support the bill. There is bipartisan support of the bill but not this White House--oh no. They think Congress shouldn't even get to decide. They think it should be up to Washington bureaucrats in the Obama administration to make the decisions. The administration thinks they are the only ones who should be allowed to decide whether the oil export ban gets lifted. It was the Obama administration that let Iran off the hook by signing such a terrible deal. It is the Obama administration that now wants to lift the sanctions and give Iran access to more than $100 billion. Should the Obama administration be the one to decide whether Iran gets to sell its oil without American competition? Is that what the President wants? Why is the Obama administration so interested in making sure Iran's economy gets back on its feet faster? The President ought to be focused on helping America's economy, not Iran's economy. Right now American producers export about 500,000 barrels of oil a day. Where does it go? It goes to Canada. Iran is exporting about 1 million barrels a day. But once President Obama lifts the sanctions, that number is going to jump to almost 2 million barrels a day--2 million barrels a day. So President Obama favors a situation where Iran will be allowed to export four times as much oil as America does--four times as much. That is what the President is in favor of. And Senate Democrats who voted to help the President lift the sanctions want the same thing. That is what they say, 4 to 1--Iran over the United States. Republicans want something very different. If the export ban is lifted, U.S. energy producers could export another 1.6 million barrels a day. Our daily oil exports would jump from half a million barrels to about 2 million barrels. That is what we want, to lift the sanctions. At the same time, Republicans voted to keep the sanctions in place against Iran. So under Republican plans, America would be exporting twice as much oil as Iran. The Democrats vote four for Iran, one for the United States, and Republicans voted two for the United States, one for Iran. That is the difference between what Washington Democrats want and what Senate Republicans want. The Brookings Institution looked at this in September of 2014. They came out with a report. They looked at a variety of different scenarios for how much oil America might export. They found that for every scenario they looked at, ``there are positive gains for U.S. households,'' with the United States being able to export more crude oil. The Government Accountability Office said the same thing last year. It said that ``removing export restrictions is expected to increase the size of the economy''--that is the U.S. economy--``with implications for employment, investment, public revenue and trade.'' Those are key for America. These studies and others predict that adding American crude oil to global supplies could ultimately reduce gasoline prices right here at home. By how much, you ask? Well, one study estimated it would save American consumers a combined average of almost $6 billion per year. This study found the savings would help increase the U.S. economy by about $38 billion by 2020. New oil exports could support an additional 300,000 jobs by 2020. These are huge benefits for the American economy, for American families--all because we free up American energy and we allow it to compete in the world's markets. There would also be benefits for America's foreign policy. More oil would reduce prices worldwide. That means the other countries that export a lot of oil won't be able to make as much money off of their own oil sales. They would have to compete with us. This includes Iran. It includes countries such as Russia and Venezuela that use the wealth from their energy sales to pilot their own economies and not for the good. New oil exports would undercut the ability of those countries to do things that are not in America's best interest. It would also help American allies around the world. Poland gets 96 percent of its oil from Russia. When they are negotiating to buy more oil, they would love--love--the opportunity and the option of American oil as an alternative. Belgium gets 60 percent of its oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia. Japan gets 75 percent of its oil from Russia and the Middle East. All of these countries and many more around the world could benefit from U.S. oil being sold on the world market. Of course, another country that would really be helped is Israel. President Obama's reckless deal with Iran has put Israel in a much more dangerous situation. Even the White House seems to recognize this. The Obama administration says that it plans to offer Israel more military aid--aid to be used to bolster Israel's defenses against Iran. But the administration should not stop at military aid; it should also offer Israel the opportunity to import American oil. Israel has trouble buying oil from many of its neighboring countries because they do not recognize the State of Israel. That leaves places such as Russia and Iraqi Kurdistan as its largest suppliers of crude oil. If the Israelis had the opportunity to buy from American oil producers instead, that would be a big help in making sure their oil supply is stable and secure. It would also help repair some of the significant damage the President's Iran deal did to the relations between our two countries. This should be an easy call. Ending the ban on U.S. oil exports would be good for American families, good for our national security, and good for our allies. The Obama administration should change course now. The Obama administration should work with Congress to end this ban on American energy exports as quickly as possible. This past Saturday marked 7 years since a Canadian company filed its application to build the Keystone KL Pipeline--7 years. It has been buried in the bureaucratic limbo of the State Department ever since. That pipeline would provide American jobs just as more oil exports would. Americans should not have to wait another 7 years for Washington to lift the oil export ban and unleash the power of American energy. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I want to speak today about a tragedy that hit the American people, the American West last month, and it is something that didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. I am talking about what has been called the Gold King Mine spill. It happened on August 5. That was when the Environmental Protection Agency spilled 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado--3 million gallons. This is water that contained toxic substances, such as arsenic and lead. The agency was doing some work on an old mine when water under high pressure started rushing out. This disturbing incident raises serious questions about how the EPA, the so-called Environmental Protection Agency, does business. First of all, it raises significant questions about this agency's responsiveness. After the EPA had this accident, apparently it never occurred to them to immediately call the towns downstream and to let anyone know this toxic plume was headed their way. The Animas River connects to the San Juan River, which connects to the Colorado River and to Lake Powell. These are some of the most beautiful natural resources in all of America. It is the source of water for communities all along the way. They provide recreation, water for irrigation for crops and for homes. This water that was polluted by the Environmental Protection Agency flows from Colorado to New Mexico and into Utah. It flows through the land of the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. These waterways are a sacred part of the culture for Native Americans who live near them. So why didn't the EPA get on the phone? The Navajo Nation was not informed until a full day after the spill. It got the news from the State of New Mexico, not from the agency that caused the disaster--the EPA. At first, EPA didn't even want to admit how bad the spill was. They said: Oh, it was a million gallons of wastewater. Days later they admitted they had actually spilled three times the amount they said at first. Four days after the spill, the EPA still hadn't reported to Navajo leaders the presence of arsenic in the water--arsenic. It still hasn't reported it. It took 5 days for the agency to set up a unified command center in Durango, CO. Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee that looked at how this disaster affected tribes along the route. The agency's explanation was disappointing--very disappointing. The disaster happened over 6 weeks ago. The EPA is still not giving out detailed answers about what went wrong. This tragedy also raises questions about the EPA's basic competence. According to a preliminary review by the agency, the EPA failed to take basic precautions--failed to take basic precautions. The agency never even checked how high the water pressure was in the mine, but the report did say the EPA knew about this risk--the risk of a blowout--14 months earlier, before it actually happened. They knew about it. They knew the risk and never bothered to figure out what the worst-case scenario would be and what they would do if water actually started rushing out. But that is what happened, and they knew it could. The people who live along these rivers are frustrated by this agency's incompetence, but they are also frightened. People are afraid of what the long-term health effects might be for them and for their children. Farmers and ranchers are being devastated by the disaster. They are uncertain about whether the agency will be compensating them for their losses--losses that are the result of the EPA's own incompetence. At our hearing yesterday we heard from Gilbert Harrison. He is a Marine Corps veteran, and he has a 20-acre farm on the Navajo reservation. He grows corn, alfalfa, watermelons, and other crops. He estimates he is going to lose 40 to 50 percent of some of his crops because he couldn't use the water to irrigate. The farmer told our committee yesterday: This spill caused by the U.S. EPA created a lot of chaos, confrontation, confusion, and losses among the farming community. This was a man-made disaster, and the Obama administration's EPA inflicted it upon Americans in these communities. I have spoken with tribal leaders who say the EPA has mishandled the spill, and the EPA's mishandling of the spill has seriously damaged their trust--the tribe's trust--of this agency. And I don't blame them. Finally, the EPA's failure in this incident raises lots of questions about the agency's priorities. After all, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency has expanded its authority--expanded and seized control over one area after another. Look at its destructive new rules on waters of the United States. This agency has declared that only Washington can be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams. That is what the Environmental Protection Agency says: Only they can be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams. How then do they justify grabbing all of this new power when they can't even protect rivers from themselves? They caused this problem. Look at this photo I have in the Chamber. Does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of protecting America's precious waterways? Look at that before-and-after: beautiful blue water running through, then this--sludge, dirty, polluted, and toxic. The EPA caused this. Does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of protecting our national precious water? The Obama administration has focused on its radical climate change agenda and has neglected its most basic responsibilities. This photo should not give anyone confidence that the Obama administration is up to the job. They are not. Do we really think that Washington should have more control over rivers like this when they caused something like this? Does anybody in America believe that? Washington did this. The EPA did this. Washington poisoned this river this way. The Environmental Protection Agency--the so-called Environmental Protection Agency--must be held accountable. When any private company is accused of violating the Clean Water Act, the EPA aggressively pursues civil fines against that company and any of the individuals involved as well. Even criminal prosecution occurs. If this were a 3-million-gallon toxic spill caused by private citizens, the EPA would act aggressively against those people. The EPA would never accept the kind of feeble, half apologies and explanations we have heard so far from this administration and from the Director of the EPA who testified yesterday. There is clearly a double standard between the way the EPA treats itself and the way it treats everyone else. The EPA failed--it failed--to do the proper planning before it caused this disaster. I believe it has also failed to do the proper work before writing regulations, such as its waters of the United States rule and its so-called Clean Power Plan. With this spill, the agency's careless approach has done terrible damage to Americans living along the Animas River and other waterways. Its reckless and irresponsible regulations will have a devastating effect on the jobs and the lives of millions of Americans all across the country. At our hearing yesterday the EPA administrator continued to try to downplay the impact of its actions--downplay the impact of its actions. The agency needs to step back and rethink its priorities. This disaster happened because the EPA is inept at its job. There should be no more trying to deflect attention from the failure of the EPA--no more trying to grab additional power that it can use to do more damage. The Environmental Protection Agency has been out of control for far too long. It is time for Congress and President Obama to hold the EPA accountable for its failures, and it is time to rein in this runaway bureaucracy before it does more damage to our communities, to our economy, and to our country. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am so proud of my colleague from South Carolina for the remarkable speech he just gave to this Senate about his concerns about this President's deal with Iran--the President's nuclear deal with Iran. That is what the Senate is debating right now-- a deal President Obama negotiated with Iran and whether that deal should stand or fall. This agreement could affect American foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond for this generation as well as the next. It will affect America's relationship with our allies as well as with our enemies. Other countries are wondering whether America will accept a flawed agreement that gives Iran almost everything it has asked for or will we, as the United States of America, stand strong against outlaw nations with nuclear ambitions and dreams. As Senators prepare to vote on this legislation we should ask: Does this agreement do enough to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? Does this agreement do enough to protect the security of the American people and our friends around the world? I believe the answer is no. It would be irresponsible to support such a weak, such a naive, and such a dangerous deal. The original goal of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program was a good one, and I wish the President had actually stuck with that goal. I wish the President had done a better job of negotiating with the Iranians. He did not. During the negotiations this administration was far too willing to make concessions, concessions that put our own national security at risk. We were in a very strong position during these negotiations from the start, and the Obama administration squandered the advantage. The President badly wanted to strike a deal with Iran, and that is the problem because President Obama has shown once again that if you want a deal badly enough, you will end up with a bad deal. The President fell in love with this deal, even though it is deeply flawed. And deeply flawed is a description our Democratic colleagues continue to make about this deal. The President cannot see the flaws that our colleagues on the Senate floor can see because I believe the President is blinded by deal euphoria. He is in love with the deal. The agreement President Obama has negotiated will legitimize Iran's nuclear program. It will accept Iran as a nuclear threshold state. To me, this is inexcusable. It is not the deal the President should have signed. It is not the deal the President could have signed. It is not the deal President Obama promised he would sign. President Obama once said that Iran didn't need advanced centrifuges in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program, but under this agreement his administration did negotiate that Iran will not eliminate a single centrifuge. It will continue to research more advanced centrifuges, and it can even start building them. So how did it happen? How did this happen? On the day the agreement was announced, the President of Iran bragged--bragged--about how he had gotten the Obama administration to surrender on this point. ``To surrender,'' that is the language I am hearing around the State of Wyoming and certainly the language we are hearing from Iran: The President surrendered. At the beginning, the President said Iran would only need 100 centrifuges. Then the number went to 1,000, then 4,000, then eventually allowed more than 6,000. When it mattered most, the Obama administration wanted a deal so badly that it was willing to concede on point after point after point. This proves if you want a deal bad enough, you will get a bad deal--and that is what we have here today. The same thing happened with ballistic missiles. GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Under no circumstances. Defense Secretary Ash Carter also testified at the same hearing. Now, this hearing, of course, was only 6 days before the final deal was announced by the President. Secretary of Defense said, ``We want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and materials they are able to get.'' That was 6 days before the final deal was announced. So what happened? What did the President of the United States surrender on? With this agreement, Iran will have access to ballistic missile technology in as little as 8 years, even though the Secretary of Defense said no; even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, ``Under no circumstances.'' That is when Russia and other countries are going to be able to start selling this deadly technology to Iran--and I believe that Iran will use it. Now, this was a last-minute demand that Iran made, and it should have been easy for President Obama to reject it, but he did not. He surrendered. The President was so desperate to get a deal that he gave in once again. It is always the same story with the Obama administration: If you want a deal bad enough, you are going to get a bad deal--and they have. When the Obama administration is negotiating with countries that need a deal much more than we do, the President of the United States surrenders. This administration has no red lines when it comes to negotiating. They will give away anything to get a deal. There have been too many concessions for anyone to be comfortable with this agreement. There are too many red flags. President Obama cannot see the defects that are obvious in this plan. He refuses to see what is so clear to the American people. After this agreement, Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, and a military and an industrial power. It will have the money to support terrorists around the world--more money than it has had in the past. It will have the freedom to pursue its nuclear ambitions. Even some Democrats who have said they support this deal are doing so with great reservations. They say they know it is not a good deal, but they say: It is the only option we have. Well, that is not a good enough reason for me to accept all of the risks and all of the concessions that the Obama administration allowed in this agreement. The President says: The choice is the Iran nuclear deal or war. He has said it time and time again. It is fear mongering. It is not true. There is an alternative. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said so. General Dempsey was asked about that at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In answer to the question: Is it this or war, the general said, ``I can tell you that we have a range of options, and I always present them''--present them to the President. ``We have a range of options.'' It is not just a choice between this deal or war. It is a choice between accepting a bad deal or rejecting it. If the only choice is to take this deal or leave it, then we must leave it. The Obama administration doesn't want us to have a vote here in the Senate. The Obama administration knows it signed a bad deal, and it wants the whole thing to disappear from the front pages before it causes them any more embarrassment. So instead of having a full and honest debate on the floor of the Senate, the President and the Senate Democrat leader are trying to hide behind a filibuster. That is not how the Senate should handle this important resolution to disapprove the Iran deal. Every Member of the Senate should be willing to cast a vote up or down on this Iran deal. We should stand up, we should represent the people of our State and this Nation, and we should cast our votes. The Obama administration has made its arguments, and it has failed to make its case. The President has not shown that America will be better off with this deal, and I believe we would be better off without it. We have heard the administration's excuses. We have heard all of the ways the final deal fell short of their promises. America can't afford to let Iran have the nuclear program that this agreement will allow it to obtain. We should vote to disapprove the Iran deal. The President should drop his veto threat. The President should send his people back to the negotiating table because this deal poses too great a threat to America's national security for us to do anything else. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from Wyoming and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for his steadfast approach to addressing budget priorities in a responsible and fiscally sound manner. There is bipartisan agreement to end the practice of fire borrowing. If Congress is going to consider budgetary cap adjustments under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, the Forest Service should first budget for 100 percent of its wildfire suppression costs before cap adjustments are made. In order to bring down the long-term cost of wildfire suppression, Congress should also actively engage in supporting activities which reduce the cost and severity of wildfire such as hazardous fuels treatments, thinning, and other active forest management projects. I have joined with Senators McCain and Flake on legislation to address these issues. I have also put forward legislation to treat more acres to improve forest health and reduce the risk of wildfire. I want to work with my colleagues in the Senate, and specifically Chairman Enzi, to prevent future fire borrowing and reduce the long-term economic and ecological costs associated with wildfires.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, as Senators get ready to head home for the August recess, I think it is a good time to look back at what we have been able to achieve so far this year. I would say, by any measure, the record of the Senate this year has been one of great accomplishments and bipartisan achievements because we have worked together to find solutions to help the country move ahead. With Republicans in charge, the Senate set a very fast pace for the first 100 days of the new Congress. We have kept up that pace now over the first 6 months of the Congress, and we are going to continue to build on that momentum for the rest of the year and, I believe, achieve even greater success on behalf of all Americans. Under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans are now governing, and we are doing it in a bipartisan way, just as we promised. The Senate passed the first budget resolution with the House since 2009--the first one since 2009. The Appropriations Committee passed all 12 spending bills for the first time in 6 years. We passed the longest reauthorization of the highway trust fund in almost a decade. The Senate passed trade promotion authority for the first time since 2002. We passed a permanent doc fix to prevent Medicare payment cuts--after 17 temporary patches since 2002. And the Senate ended Washington's test-based education policies by making States responsible and accountable. A lot of people in Washington have written about gridlock, and they had gotten used to the gridlock when Democrats ran the Senate. Now they are starting to realize the Senate really is working again. They realize we can actually get things done. That is not me speaking. That is what the Bipartisan Policy Center recently said. This is a group of former Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. They came out with a report called their ``Healthy Congress Index.'' They did it for the first 6 months of 2015. The headline of the report was ``Continued Signs of Life in Congress.'' Continued signs of life--imagine that--actual signs of life and activity taking place in Congress this year. This bipartisan group reported that the total number of days worked is up from previous years--15 more days worked just so far in the first 6 months of the Senate compared to last year. That is 3 more weeks of work on the Senate floor than the year before under Harry Reid. The Bipartisan Policy Center also said the committees are actually working again. ``Congressional committees have been extremely active, reporting a significantly larger number of bills than the previous two Congresses.'' That is because the committees are working again. In the first 6 months of this year we had 102 bills reported out of committees in the Senate, compared to just 69 in the first 6 months of the last Congress and just 42 in the Congress before that. Now, that is just through the end of June. Our committees have produced even more bills since then. So committees are working--and we are working together--to push out bipartisan bills. Right now both Houses of Congress are in a 60-day period of scrutinizing the Iran nuclear agreement. We are able to do that because the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act had unanimous support in the Foreign Relations Committee--Republicans and Democrats voting together--and then it got overwhelming bipartisan support on the Senate floor. That is just one more way the Senate is working again. So far in this Congress we passed more than 64 different bills. The highway trust fund legislation was bipartisan. It will fund highways and transportation all across the country, and 26 Democrats voted in favor of that legislation. We passed the education reform bill with 40 Democrats in favor. When we passed the trade promotion authority, 14 Democrats joined Republicans to get that done. These important pieces of legislation are just part of our commitment to work together to solve problems for the American people. Even Tom Daschle--Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate leader-- recently said: ``The good news is that Congress is continuing to move in the right direction: staying in session more often, empowering committees to work together.'' That is from a former Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. He is exactly right. The Senate is working again, we are moving in the right direction, and we are just getting started. I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to find solutions on more issues that matter to the American people. There is still a lot of work to be done, specifically related to our economy. People want a healthy economy. But there is still far too much redtape and regulation coming out of Washington, and it continues to strangle our economy. New numbers came out last week about the slow pace of economic growth over the first half of the year. One of the headlines came out last Friday about the slow pace and it said: ``Worst Expansion Since World War II Gets Even Worse.'' ``Worst Expansion Since World War II Gets Even Worse.'' The article says: ``The economy expanded at a 2.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter [of the year], once again falling short of projections for a decisive rebound and raising concerns that the six-year old expansion will never pick up steam''--will never pick up steam, ever. So the recovery from the last recession has been far weaker than recoveries from other recessions under Presidents Reagan and Clinton. One reason is that the Obama administration has tied the hands of those who hire others. It makes it much harder to get our economy going again. Hard-working families are still struggling because their wages are not growing. That is what another set of government numbers said on Friday. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment costs had their worst gains ever in the second quarter of the year. What does the White House plan to do about it? What is President Obama's plan for ``Worst Expansion Since World War II Gets Even Worse''? What does the President want to do about it? Well, on Monday President Obama and the administration announced its so-called--so- called--Clean Power Plan, and it is going to mandate massive new redtape and job-crushing regulations. It is a national energy tax. More Americans will lose their jobs, and more hard-working families across the country will be hit with higher electric bills. Congress can stop this costly and destructive regulation from taking effect, and that is where we are headed. The way to do it is by passing a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act. The American people have seen that Congress is capable of coming together to take on important issues, and this is certainly one. Hardworking Americans are extremely anxious for us to continue working together to solve some of these problems that continue to face our country. We have done it before, and we can do it again, as long as we have a willing partner. The Senate passed the bipartisan Keystone XL Pipeline jobs bill. Then President Obama vetoed it. We passed an appropriations bill out of committee that funded the Department of Defense at the levels the President requested, and the Democrats here in the Senate have blocked those funds for our troops. In fact, Democrats are blocking all of the appropriations bills, including ones that passed out of the committee with bipartisan support. The American people want their elected representatives in the Senate to deal with these issues. The American people want to see us get past the gridlock once more--as we have already done so many times this year. The American people want us to tear down the barriers to stronger economic growth so they can get back to work, they can earn a decent wage, and they can take care of their families. This Senate has accomplished a lot in the first half of the year. I believe we can do even more in the second half of the year. That is the commitment Republicans made to the American people, and we are keeping that commitment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on September 1, 2015, the Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming will be holding their Annual Awards and Recognition Breakfast where they will honor Casper philanthropists, Larry and Margo Bean. The Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming has been making positive differences in the lives of our children since 1978. The club provides a supportive environment and an extensive array of programs and services to enhance the development of our youth. Through entertaining activities and with the guidance of volunteer mentors, participants learn the important values of independence, community, and belonging. Every year, the Boys & Girls Club plans a breakfast to honor a member or members of the community who make outstanding contributions to both the Boys & Girls Club and the city of Casper. This year's honorees, Larry and Margo Bean, are incredible champions in the Casper community and worthy of this special recognition. Growing up on farms in Iowa, Larry and Margo moved to Casper as young adults with a desire to help, encourage, and bring joy to those who crossed their paths, particularly children. Anyone who knows the couple knows that the care and support they show for each other equals their passion for philanthropy and civic engagement. Next year, the couple will celebrate their 50th anniversary. They will celebrate this milestone occasion with their children Joshua, Amber, Nathan, and Nicole, and grandchildren Ella, Xavier, Mia, Mars, Sullivan, Cassius, and Vincent--who will be born next month. As a couple, they are a powerhouse, yet they have significant individual accomplishments. As an author of four children's books, Margo's inspiration to write stories for children came from her father, Max Cronbaugh. Her father was an amazing storyteller who never failed to capture the imagination of children and the excitement of everyday life on the farm. With her experience as an elementary school teacher and growing up on her family's Iowa farm, Margo's books reflect her unique experience and the special place children have always held in her heart. Her continued dedication to educating children in Wyoming is shown by leadership efforts at the St. Anthony Tri-Parish Catholic School, where some of their grandchildren attend school. Additionally, Margo was chairman of the Wyoming Medical Center board of directors and ran a successful business. Larry is a certified public accountant and he provides valuable guidance and financial advice. In addition, Larry serves on the board of directors for several important organizations including the Martin Family Foundation, the Converse County Bank, and the Central Wyoming Counseling Center. As so many folks in Wyoming know, Larry is the ultimate letterwriter. His letters are individual masterpieces. In every letter from Larry, you see his smile and feel his friendship. Larry freely gives encouragement and inspiration--one letter at a time. Over the years, Bobbi and I have looked forward to the Bean's annual Christmas letter. Together, Larry and Margo have touched the lives of thousands of children and families in Wyoming through their philanthropic and volunteer work. At Christmastime, their ``Love in Action'' project collects presents for families in need. They sponsor and coordinate youth events in the community including The American Dream Essay contest, The Uprising, and the Global Leadership Summit. The Beans also support youth faith-based organizations such as Child Evangelism Fellowship and Youth for Christ. They also have been strong supporters of the Nicolaysen Discovery Center and the Central Wyoming Rescue Mission. Their kindness and generosity expands across the globe. Larry and Margo are diligently working to develop faith-based schools in Zambia and Haiti. These neighborhood schools will bring hope and opportunities to these children as well as to these communities. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in extending our congratulations to Larry and Margo Bean and thanking them for their dedication to Wyoming and its youth. All of us privileged to know them are blessed.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, at the 103rd Wyoming State Fair, Senator Enzi and I will have the pleasure of introducing Shaun and Lacee Sims as 2015 inductees of the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. I am proud to say this dynamic husband and wife team exemplify the ideals of the Wyoming way of life and have made immense contributions to the State and national agricultural community. The Sims family has demonstrated their deep-rooted commitment through five generations of involvement in stewardship of the land and production of high quality livestock. Shaun and Lacee have shared their passion for agriculture as parents, and now as grandparents, with their children and grandchildren. Shaun and Lacee have shared their livelihood with countless local students who have toured their ranch and wind turbine facility. The students who visit their ranching operation gain valuable insight into the origin of their food and electricity. In addition to educating students, the Sims have also taught the teachers by hosting the Wyoming Ag in the Classroom Teacher Institute. As Amy Hendrickson, executive director of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association observed, ``They have served as educators, mentors, and leaders on a variety of important issues affecting Wyoming's agriculture industry, and their example of true leadership serves as a model for others.'' Shaun and Lacee have served in various capacities whenever they have been called upon. Shaun's service extends from his 14-year tenure with the Uinta County Conservation District Supervisors to his election on the National Association of Conservation Districts Executive Board. As president of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Shaun often sacrifices valuable time on his home ranch to attend all meetings for Uinta County and the State association. Shaun's dedication to the State and the industry has not gone unnoticed. He was recently appointed to a second term on the Wyoming Board of Agriculture. Like her husband, Lacee has been an active agricultural advocate in Wyoming. Lacee received the Masters of Beef Advocacy certification through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and was appointed by Wyoming Governor Matt Mead to serve on the statewide Wyoming Beef Council. Lacee has combined her passion for agriculture with her growing photography business to tell the story of agriculture through an artistic lens. By highlighting the beauty and importance of Wyoming agriculture, she is able to capture in photos what words often fail to convey. Patrick Zimmerer, with the Wyoming Board of Agriculture stated, ``Lacee tells and advocates the story of Wyoming agriculture through her lens as a photographer and through social media, telling and highlighting the importance of Wyoming agriculture to a broad audience of followers.'' Shaun and Lacee Sims represent every positive attribute of leaders in Wyoming agriculture. Together, side by side, they have represented Wyoming's interests with dedication and honor. It is because of people like them that the agricultural community in Wyoming has a bright and productive future. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in congratulating these outstanding individuals, Shaun and Lacee Sims, who are 2015 inductees into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every day it seems as though Americans are hearing more and more news about how badly ObamaCare is failing. Some of the latest headlines have had to do with just how expensive health insurance is going to be next year under the President's health care law. The price increases that are being reported are truly staggering. Insurance companies are planning to raise rates 20 percent, 30 percent, even 40 percent on some of their plans, and they say it is because of the health care law. The New York Times had an article just a couple of weeks ago. It quoted one lead advocate in the State of Oregon saying specifically that some people may ``start wondering if insurance is affordable, or if it's worth the money.'' Well, a lot of Americans have been wondering if the entire health care law is actually worth the money. Now, some Democrats have said that these outrageous price increases will not affect everyone. Well, they sure affect a lot of people. You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the increases will not be as large as they are going to be, if you are willing to switch plans every year or if you accept less access to doctors or even less access to medications. Well, the argument makes the same mistake that President Obama made from the beginning about the health care law, and it confuses coverage with actual care. In Connecticut, some insurance companies say they have come up with ways to slow down the increase in their premiums. What they are doing is they are actually cutting access to care. One company decided that it could save some money by reducing the use of specialty drugs. So some people who have this insurance may not be getting the drugs they used to get. Another company in Connecticut decided that it could charge a little less by limiting the number of doctors that the patients could see. Instead of raising rates by 12.5 percent next year as they had planned, they said the company will now just be raising rates 11.5 percent. That is the kind of situation that hard-working families are facing--higher premiums, less access to care. These narrow networks of hospitals and doctors are not just hurting people in Connecticut. They are turning up in ObamaCare plans all across the country. There was a study that came out this month. It found that plans offered through ObamaCare insurance exchanges across the country covered 34 percent fewer doctors than the average plan sold outside the exchanges. Now, it is even worse for some specialists. According to the report, exchange plans include 42 percent fewer oncology and cardiac specialists. That is cancer doctors. That is heart doctors. So if you have cancer or if you have a heart condition, there is a much lower chance that your doctor is covered by your ObamaCare insurance. People are paying outrageously high premiums, copays, and deductibles, and they are left with insurance coverage that may not cover their care. So a lot of people have decided they just cannot afford the Affordable Care Act. They would rather pay a tax penalty to the IRS than spend hard-earned money on this limited and expensive ObamaCare insurance. According to the IRS, last year 7.5 million hard- working taxpayers paid that tax penalty. That is 1 out of 17 taxpayers. Another 12 million people could not afford ObamaCare insurance or did not want it, and they filed a form saying they should not have to pay the penalty at all because it was unaffordable. There were only 6 million people who actually signed up for ObamaCare exchange plans last year. Almost 20 million people rejected ObamaCare because it was too expensive and it was not right for them and their families. Now, President Obama has said repeatedly that the health care law is working--he said even better than he expected. Is this what he is talking about--even better than he expected? More Americans are rejecting ObamaCare than are signing up for it on the Federal exchange. Is that better than the President expected? Does President Obama think that the Federal insurance exchange is working better than he expected? There were headlines about this recently as well and how Washington has failed to protect taxpayer dollars. The Government Accountability Office set up a test of healthcare.gov, the President's Web site, the one that failed so miserably. What they did is they created 12 fraudulent applications in order to see if they could actually get health insurance subsidies using fraudulent applications, and 11 of those 12 phony applications were approved last year. Now, here we are a year later. It turns out that the Washington bureaucrats--you cannot believe it--reviewed these policies and renewed the taxpayer-funded subsidies for all 11 of these phony applicants. Some of them even got higher subsidies this year than they did last year. So what does the Government Accountability Office say about it? Well, the chief investigator looked at it. He said: There still appears to be no system in place--no system in place--to catch missing or fabricated documentation. It is incredible and it is disturbing, and it is no surprise that taxpayers are offended. Finally, we are also seeing more news about one of the taxes that the Democrats included in their health care law. There was a headline in the New York Times last Wednesday: ``Concern Grows on Health Tax.'' That was on Wednesday, July 22, first page of the business section. ``Concern Grows on Health Tax.'' Now, this is about the new 40-percent tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans. These are the plans that employers offer to their workers. These are the plans that Washington says are too generous. The article tells the story of Kurt Gallow, who works at a paper mill in Longview, WA. When you follow over, it says: Concern grows over excise tax's effect on health care plans. There are a number of people working and talking at this location in Longview, WA. But the story of Kurt is also about his wife, Brenda. She has diabetes. The article says that Kurt and Brenda are ``worrying about his company's proposed new health care plan, which would require workers to pay as much as $6,000 toward their family's medical bills.'' Now, that is a huge amount of money for anyone. But it is a huge amount of money for some of these very hard-working families. Now, these are changes that their employer has to make because of the President's health care law. You know what. This is not even an ObamaCare plan. This is not something they are buying through the exchange. These are people who get their insurance through work. Now, President Obama said that if you get your insurance through your job, ``nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.'' Well, millions of Americans across the country are finding out that was just one more expensive broken promise made by the President. ObamaCare continues to be a complicated and costly mess. Republicans have offered good ideas about how to lower health care costs, how to improve access, and how to help Americans lead healthier lives. We all have ideas that will get rid of some of the ridiculous Washington- imposed mandates that are driving up costs and forcing so many Americans to go without insurance and certainly without care. Six years ago, the American people were unhappy with health care in this country. They did not think the solution was higher prices, less access to care, and higher taxes as well. The American people are not satisfied with these constant headlines about all of the problems with the President's health care law. Congress should not be satisfied with the current state of health care in this country either or with the disastrous side effects of the President's health care law. It is time for the President to admit the health care law is causing pain and problems all across the country. It is time to start anew, to give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. 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 graduate of Hanna Elk Mountain Junior/Senior High School. She currently attends Casper College. 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 thank Alyssa for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Peter Vicenzi for his hard work as an intern in the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Peter currently attends St. Mary's College in Maryland, where is he studying public policy and 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 thank Peter for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a 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. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Casey Terrell for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Casey is a native of Pinedale, WY, and a graduate of Pinedale High School. He currently attends 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 thank Casey for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a 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. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Morgan Temte for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Morgan is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne Central High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming. 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 thank Morgan for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Acadia DeAtley for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Acadia is a native of Cody, WY, and a graduate of Cody High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming. 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 thank Acadia for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Tessa Robinson for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tessa lives in Gillette and currently attends Northern Wyoming Community College. 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 thank Tessa for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, 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 lives in Rock Springs, WY, and he currently attends Western Wyoming Community College. 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 thank Andrew for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a 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. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mackenzie Muirhead for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Mackenzie is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming. 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 thank Mackenzie for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Eric Morales 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. Eric is a native of Casper, WY, and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. He currently attends Northwestern University. 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 thank Eric for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a 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.