John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 197, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for years, we have witnessed Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, wreak havoc across Europe. Putin has invaded and carved up free, independent, and democratic countries, such as Georgia and Ukraine. He has bullied our friends in the European Union. He has intimidated our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. A principal weapon of Putin's has been Russia's energy supplies--specifically, natural gas. Putin has used Russia's natural gas to extort, to threaten, and to coerce our allies and our partners. He has repeatedly shut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine and has retaliated against countries that have come to Ukraine's aid. So 21 countries--21 countries--import more than 40 percent of their natural gas from Russia. Of these 21 nations, 13 are members of NATO and 5 of these NATO members import nearly 100 percent of their gas from Russia. I recently returned from Eastern Europe. Our NATO allies and European partners are desperate to find alternative sources of natural gas. They are seeking to develop their own natural gas resources. But amazingly, Putin is funding activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing in Europe. It is clear that Putin wants to keep our NATO allies dependent on Russian energy. Our NATO allies have publicly called on Congress to help them access America's natural gas. We can do that by adopting my amendment, No. 1582. My amendment would help countries such as Ukraine, our NATO allies, and others access America's vast supplies of natural gas. Specifically, it would ensure that the Secretary of Energy makes timely decisions on applications to export Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG. Under current law, exports of LNG to countries such as our NATO allies are presumed to be in the public interest, unless the Secretary finds otherwise. But over the last several years, the Secretary's decisionmaking process has been, at best, unpredictable. My amendment would fix that. Specifically, my amendment would require the Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days after the environmental review process is complete. My amendment would ensure that legal challenges to LNG export projects are resolved expeditiously. It would also require exporters to publicly disclose the countries to which LNG has been delivered. In January of this year, the energy committee held a hearing on legislation that is identical to my amendment. At that hearing, the Department of Energy testified that my legislation is ``a solution we will be able to comply with.'' I am encouraged by DOD's support for this legislation. I am also encouraged by the support of the National Association of Manufacturers and others who testified that LNG exports would create thousands of jobs across America and help reduce our Nation's trade deficit. The United States is the world's largest producer of natural gas. We have more than enough natural gas to meet our own needs and use our gas to bring about positive change throughout the world. Do not take my word for it. Listen to what the Obama administration had to say. In February of this year, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers stated that ``an increase in U.S. exports of natural gas . . . would have a number of mostly beneficial effects on . . . employment, U.S. geopolitical security, and the environment.'' The President's economic advisers said that LNG exports would create tens of thousands of jobs in the United States, jobs that ``would arise . . . in natural gas production[,] manufacturing [and] a range of sectors, including . . . infrastructure investment, and transportation.'' The President's economic advisers also stated that U.S. LNG exports would have ``a positive geopolitical impact for the United States.'' Specifically, they explained that U.S. LNG ``builds liquidity in the global natural gas market, and reduces European dependence on the current primary suppliers, Russia and Iran.'' Again, these are not my words. This is from the White House. Mr. President, Congress has a choice: We can watch Putin use natural gas as a weapon against our allies and partners or we can take a meaningful step to help our friends. My amendment boosts the security of our NATO allies and friends around the world, and it does so through a peaceful means. It doesn't spend American tax dollars and all the while will help to grow America's economy. It is a commonsense amendment, and I ask all of the Members to support it. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the time be equally divided, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; finally, that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1735.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this morning President Obama will be speaking at a meeting of the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Now, the White House says the President will talk about his health care law. The President has already been spending a lot of time talking about the law. At the G7 summit in Germany this past weekend, the President was asked about the law and what he said is: ``The thing is working.'' He said: ``We haven't had a conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have come to pass.'' The President must be kidding himself. This morning, when he talks to this Catholic health care group, President Obama should stop his denial and he should confess the truth. If he gives another rosy speech about the impact of this terrible law, he will be, once again, intentionally and deliberately misleading the people in his audience. The President should not stand on the stage today and pretend his law is helping more people than it hurts. He should not stand on that stage today and pretend he hasn't heard that his law is causing premiums to skyrocket. He should not stand on that stage today and pretend he has kept his promises about this law. He should not stand on that stage today without admitting his law has cut into the take-home pay of millions of hard-working Americans. What the President should do is talk about how his health care law has hurt nonprofit hospitals like the Catholic hospitals across the country. That was the subject of a Wall Street Journal article just last Wednesday with the headline: ``Hospitals Expected More of a Boost From Health Law.'' Now, remember, President Obama said his health care law was going to help hospitals. He said it would help hospitals because uninsured people wouldn't be coming into the emergency room needing free care anymore. Well, that hasn't happened. Even more people are going to the emergency room today. According to the Wall Street Journal, nonprofit hospitals have seen a huge increase in Medicaid patients--and Medicaid pays only about half of the cost of caring for patients. The article gives an example of a group of nonprofit hospitals near St. Louis. It has lost about $5 million as a result of President Obama's Medicaid expansion. That is a big hit for a nonprofit hospital to take. It directly affects hospitals' ability to continue providing high-quality care. If President Obama is honest today, I would say he needs to explain to this Catholic health care group why his health care law has not lived up to expectations. Is he going to explain why his law is hurting their ability to provide care? It is not only hospitals that are being hurt by ObamaCare, millions of people across the country are seeing the news that their insurance premiums might soar by 20 percent, 30 percent or even more next year. In North Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield says it needs to raise premiums by 26 percent. In Minnesota, Blue Cross wants to raise rates by 54 percent. President Obama spent part of his childhood in Hawaii. One insurance company there is planning to raise premiums by 49 percent. Will the President explain to this group today why premiums are skyrocketing? I will tell you why they are skyrocketing. It is because of the cost of all the Washington-mandated services that came from ObamaCare. Another reason costs are going up is all the bureaucracy that came with the health care law. There was an article in The Hill newspaper May 27 with the headline: ``Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds.'' The article says: Five years after the passage of ObamaCare, there is one expense that's still causing sticker shock across the health care industry: overhead costs. It continues: The administrative costs for healthcare plans are expected to explode by more than a quarter trillion dollars over the next decade, according to a new study. This is $270 billion ``over and above what would have been expected had the health care law not been enacted.'' That is what this study found. Under the health care law, Washington has been spending billions of taxpayer dollars on health care: $1 out of every $4 is going to overhead--not to treat sick or injured people, not to help or prevent disease, no, to overhead. It is the President's law. It is incredible. This money isn't being used to help one sick child, to provide medicine for a single individual, it is overhead. As one of the study's authors put it, the money ``is just going to bureaucracy.'' According to this study, this works out to $1,375 per newly insured person per year under Obama's health care law. Now, of course, people's premiums are going through the roof. The health care law created or raised 20 different taxes. Maybe President Obama today should explain why $1 out of every $4 that Washington spends on health care should go to bureaucracy instead of caring for patients. The President's health care law is hurting hard-working American families who are going to have to pay premiums of 40 to 50 percent more next year. It is hurting the hospitals that are supposed to provide the actual health care to those patients. It is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on overhead and bureaucracy instead of caring for sick people. ObamaCare is an expensive disaster. Now, that is not just my opinion. A new poll came out the other day from CNN. It found only 11 percent, only one in nine Americans say the law is a success. President Obama says the law is working. Well, only one in nine agree with him. In another poll, just 39 percent of people support the law. That is down 10 percentage points in 1 year. You ask: Why is it? Well, because people look at it and say it is a bad deal for them personally. The President made promises, and he has broken them. He said: If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. Millions lost their coverage. He said the cost of insurance premiums would drop by $2,500 per year. Costs have exploded, the cost of the premiums, the cost of the copays, the cost of the deductibles, and many people who have this expensive new insurance cannot get care. Coverage does not equal care. That is why this health care law is more unpopular now than ever before. Sometime this month the Supreme Court could make an important decision about the health care law. The Court is set to rule on whether some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that President Obama has been spending were even supposed to be spent under the law. This decision could affect more than 6 million Americans. So you would assume the White House is prepared for the decision. You would assume the White House would have a plan. Well, does the White House have a plan for these 6 million Americans who are worried about how they will pay for their expensive, new ObamaCare plans with all of its mandates? Not according to the President. In Germany yesterday, the President refused repeatedly--refused--to talk about a plan B. The closest he came was to say, ``Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision.'' That is not a real solution. People see their premiums going up, and they are very concerned. President Obama owes America a serious answer. Republicans aren't interested in a one-sentence fix unless that sentence is: ObamaCare is repealed. We want to protect the American people from this complicated, confusing, and costly health care law. If the Court rules against the President, then Republicans will be ready to sit down with Democrats to get some things right. That means stopping ObamaCare's broken promises and its harmful mandates. Republicans will offer a plan, and we will work with the President to give people back the freedom, the freedom to make health care choices that work for them and for their families. It will be up to the President and Democrats in Congress whether they want to join us or if they want to continue with their partisan fight and their delusions that this law is popular and working. I hope they will work with us on the reforms the American people need, want, and deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, this morning, Majority Leader McConnell spoke about the skyrocketing costs, the broken promises, and the repeated failures of the President's health care law. He pointed out specifically how so many Americans are facing double-digit premium increases because of ObamaCare. In his home State of Kentucky, some people face proposed increases as high as 25 percent. He noted that some people in Indiana could be hit with a 46-percent jump in their premiums. So how did Democratic Leader Reid respond to the news of double-digit premium increases? He said people are extremely satisfied with health care. He said the people Majority Leader McConnell spoke about are having increases that are ``very, very minimal.'' I wish to repeat that. The Democratic leader, on the floor of the Senate today, called premium increases of 25 and 46 percent very, very minimal. What world is he living in? How on Earth can Senate Democrats believe Americans are satisfied with their health care when they are facing double-digit premium increases? How on Earth can the Senate Democratic leader believe these increases are very, very minimal? They are shocking. The Democrats have their head in the sand about the health care law. We can pick up Investor's Business Daily, Monday, June 1: ``ObamaCare Deductibles Soaring to $6,500 for Silver-Level Plan.'' Pick up the Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 22: ``Health Insurers Seek Big Increases.'' Investor's Business Daily today: ``ObamaCare Enrollment Mystery: 2 Million Young Adults Missing.'' They are not signing up, and there are plenty of good reasons why. It is not because it is a good deal for them. No matter how bad it gets, no matter how unaffordable it is, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress absolutely refuse to face the reality. They refuse to help Americans who continue to be hurt by this law. I wish to speak a little bit about the reality of the law and why Republicans are committed to helping all Americans finally have access to affordable care. We all remember when President Obama promised that his health care law would cause insurance premiums to go down--down--by an average of $2,500 per year, per family. So where do we stand now? A couple of weeks ago was the deadline for insurance companies to say what they intended to charge people for health care next year. This is the first time companies have been able to set their prices based on a full year of information about how much ObamaCare actually costs. From what we have seen so far, the cost is enormous. A lot of Americans are going to be shocked by how much more their health insurance will be. These higher premiums are just the latest evidence that ObamaCare is an expensive failure. We have seen reports about the largest insurance company in New Mexico saying it wants to raise rates by almost 52 percent next year. The biggest insurer in Tennessee wants to raise its rates 36 percent. In Maryland, the largest insurer is planning to increase premiums by more than 30 percent. Yet, we hear Senator Reid on the floor of the Senate this morning saying these things don't matter. People who are in the President's home State of Illinois right now are facing an average premium increase of 30 percent. It seems as though there is another headline every day about how expensive health care insurance is becoming. The Wall Street Journal Tuesday: ``Insurers Seek Big Premium Increases.'' I know there are some supporters of the law who like to say lots of people have insurance under ObamaCare. How many of them are actually going to be paying these double-digit rate increases next year because of ObamaCare? That is what Americans want to know. On Monday, the Obama administration released information on rate hikes for people living in about 41 States. It turns out that 676 different insurance plans--different ObamaCare insurance plans--offered for sale in these 41 States plan to raise their rates by double digits--by at least double digits. The average increase is 21 percent. About 6 million people getting their insurance from these plans will face double-digit rate increases next year. Do Democrats who voted for ObamaCare think a 21-percent rate increase is affordable? Do they think a double-digit premium increase will help these 6 million hard-working Americans? These numbers are so large, it is hard to even understand what they mean for a typical person. What does it mean that health insurance policies in Maryland might have an average rate increase of 30 percent? How does that impact someone's life, their quality of life? Let's say there is a 40-year-old nonsmoker living in Annapolis, MD. He buys a silver plan from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, which is the biggest insurer in Maryland and the most popular kind of plan. According to the Wall Street Journal study, those rates would go from about $2,900 for the year to nearly $3,700 next year. That is an $800- a-year increase. The President promised it would go down $2,500, and now it has gone up $800. That is how expensive ObamaCare has become. It is far more costly than people thought it was going to be, than the insurers thought it was going to cost, and far more costly than the American people were told it was going to be. I have heard some Democrats who support this law say these are just the requested rates. They say we shouldn't worry because State insurance agencies won't allow these huge rate increases to take effect. Well, CareFirst, the company in Maryland that wants a 30- percent rate increase next year, raised its rates 16 percent last year. Hard-working people across the country are going to have to pay these enormous premiums because the President mandates they buy it. And many of them still won't be able to actually use their insurance because the deductibles and the copays are so high. This year, the average deductible for an ObamaCare silver plan is almost $3,000 per person and more than $6,000 per family. One has to ask, why are costs going up so much so fast? That is what a radio station in Kansas City, MO, KCUR-FM, asked. They reported last week, on May 27, that premiums for some plans in Kansas are going to go up 38 percent. According to the radio station, the increases ``appear to be driven by requirements in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.'' That is what they report. The Kansas State Insurance Department said it was because of things like all of the coverage mandates in the law. Families are now paying for coverage that is more than they need, more than they want, and more than they can afford. A spokesman for the State insurance agency in the State of Kansas told the radio station, ``These things cost money.'' What do people think about these enormous increases in their premiums? Are people happy because of all the extra money they have to pay because of Obamacare? Let's look at Connecticut. In Connecticut, they have been writing to the State insurance department, and they are angry and frustrated about the Obamacare price hikes. One person wrote, ``I find it outrageous that the rates for 2016 are going to increase by 6.7 percent,'' which was the request in Connecticut. The person goes on: Where do you think that I am going to get that money? I do not get a raise every year based on your ``every year'' rate increases. So this is somebody who is having a hard time with a rate increase of only 6.7 percent. Imagine how tough it is going to be for families all around the country who will have to pay 20 or 30 or 40 percent more next year for their Obamacare-mandated insurance. Thousands of families across the country are facing these shocking rate increases, and it might be just the beginning. Sometime this month, the Supreme Court is expected to decide an important case called King v. Burwell. This case is about the subsidies some people get to pay Obamacare's alarmingly high costs. The health care law said that Washington could subsidize the premiums of people who buy insurance through its exchanges established by the States. President Obama knew that wouldn't be enough because he knew his law was going to make insurance premiums skyrocket, so he told his administration to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance in the Federal exchange as well. Democrats in Congress wrote the law to allow subsidies for one group, and then the President then decided to pay them out for another group. So if the Supreme Court decides that the President overstepped his authority, there are going to be a lot of people who could be facing paying the full cost of their Obamacare plans without the subsidy. They are going to see just how expensive this Obamacare insurance is and just how destructive the Democrats' health care law has been. Let's face it. In spite of what the minority leader says on the floor of the Senate, Obamacare has been a disaster. It is bad for patients. It is bad for providers. It has been terrible for the American taxpayers, hard-working Americans who work every day to try to put food on the table and pay their taxes. Republicans are offering better solutions, real solutions that will end these outrageous and expensive Obamacare side effects. That means giving Americans freedom, choice, and control over their health care decisions. Republicans understand that hard-working American families can't afford Obamacare any longer. Democrats need to admit that their health care law has been and continues to be an expensive failure. If they are ready to do that, then Republicans will work with them to help give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. Thank you, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Justin Gorkowski, a U.S. Army fellow for the office of Senator Roy Blunt, be granted floor privileges throughout the duration of consideration of H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, our Nation observed Memorial Day. We paid tribute to the sacrifices so many Americans have made to preserve our freedom. Also, last week, while Members were back home, the Obama administration snuck out a new rule that takes away freedom from Americans all across the country. The Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of a new rule that will dramatically increase the agency's power and will devastate Americans' ability to use their own property and their own water. With this rule, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency overreaches and ignores the American public. The rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the Clean Water Act calls waters of the United States. There is bipartisan agreement that Washington bureaucrats have gone way beyond their authority with this new regulation. They have written this rule so broadly and with so much uncertainty that it is not clear if there are any limits on this Agency's power. I agree with what the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee has to say. He wrote it in an op-ed that appeared yesterday. Senator Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said: Not only does this final rule break promises EPA has made, but it claims federal powers even beyond what EPA originally proposed a year ago. This will drastically affect--for the worse--the ability of many Americans to use and enjoy their property. This rule gives the Agency broad control over things such as any area within 4,000 feet of a navigable water or a tributary. Then, it defines tributaries to include any place where you can see an ``ordinary high water mark'' on what looks like--on what looks like--it was once the bank of a creek body of water--what looks like, not what is but what looks like. Under the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate something as waters of the United States if it falls in a 100-year floodplain of a navigable water--not a navigable water but anything within a 100-year floodplain of a navigable water. The rule says the Agency has to find a ``significant nexus'' to navigable water. What is a significant nexus to the EPA? Well, the Agency gets to make up its own definition. They say it includes something as simple as finding that the water provides--get this--``life cycle dependent aquatic habitat'' for a species that spends part of its time in a navigable water. All of these terms are things that Washington bureaucrats are defining for themselves. They decide for themselves that they have the authority. Let's say your property is within 4,000 feet of anything the Environmental Protection Agency decides is a tributary and your property has a natural pond or some standing water after heavy rain, and let's say a bird that spends part of its life on the Colorado River decides to hang out near that natural pond or some standing water after a heavy rain that occurred on your property, under this new regulation, the Environmental Protection Agency now has the power to regulate what you do on that land. It is bad enough that this administration has taken this extraordinary step. It is bad enough that it has tried to sneak out its rule, hoping that nobody was paying attention over the Memorial Day time at home. There are now reports that the Obama administration may have broken the law. Here is what the New York Times reported on May 18 under the headline on the front page: ``Critics Hear E.P.A.'s Voice in `Public Comments.''' This is an article on the front page of the New York Times about the public comments that government agencies have to collect. They have to collect these comments from the public when they propose new regulations such as this one that they have done with the waters of the United States. The comment period is supposed to be an opportunity for people who might be harmed by the rules to have their say. Well, according to this front-page article in the New York Times, the Environmental Protection Agency has twisted the public comment requirements into its own private government-funded spin machine. The article says: ``In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, the agency has orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with President Obama.'' This tests the limits of Federal lobbying law. This government agency ignored the negative comments by Americans who were concerned about the law, who were hurt by the law. Then it used taxpayer dollars to lobby liberal groups to flood the Agency with positive comments. That is not me; that is what is written in the New York Times. These were the same phony, ginned-up comments it used to justify the dramatic overreach of its new regulations. It is incredible. It is unacceptable. I believe it is illegal. The Environmental Protection Agency would rather skew public comments in its favor than acknowledge the real concerns that Americans and Members of Congress have with this destructive rule. These are the concerns of farmers, of ranchers, of hard-working families, and of small businesses all across the country. There was an interesting column in U.S. News & World Report last Friday. The headline says: ``Stop Terrorizing Main Street.'' The column talked about the damage that all this redtape can do to small businesses. It says: When the EPA jumps up and yells `boo', entrepreneurs cringe. They withdraw. They feel anxious and reconsider plans to start or expand a business. This is bad for our economy. This is hurting our country. Well, I believe they are exactly right. That is what Washington does with the uncertainty and the overreach of rules such as this one. It is bad for the economy. It does nothing to improve the quality of our water or the quality of life. There is universal agreement in this country that we should protect America's navigable waters. There is also bipartisan agreement on the best ways for Washington to help to do that. This is not just Republicans against President Obama. This is Republicans and Democrats working to protect America's waterways and President Obama working, instead, to expand the power of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Here is how the newspaper The Hill reported it last Thursday with an article with this headline: ``Democrats buck Obama on water rule.'' The article says: ``Dozens of Congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration's new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation's waterways.'' Now, it is talking about my bill, a bill called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. The bill has 30 cosponsors in the Senate-- Democrats and Republicans alike. A similar bill in the House actually passed with the support of 24 Democrats and every Republican. So what does the administration have to say to the dozens of Democrats in Congress, to the 24 Democrats who voted against the administration, to the millions of Americans who are concerned about this new regulation? Well, according to the article in The Hill, President Obama's top environmental adviser said of the Democrats who voted for this: ``The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters.'' So the President believes that the 24 Democrats who voted to support it and the Democrats in the Senate who cosponsored my legislation are polluters who want to threaten our clean water. That is what the White House thinks of these Democrats in Congress. That is what the White House thinks of anyone who dares to suggest that this rule is bureaucratic overreach. That is such arrogance. Well, there are a lot of Americans--Democrats and Republicans--who are not going to be intimidated by the Obama administration's power grab or its name-calling. The Obama administration has ignored the strong bipartisan consensus against this rule. It has once again taken its own radical approach. Instead of moving forward with a rule that fails to represent the interests of many Americans, we should act immediately to pass this bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act. This legislation says yes to clean water and no to extreme bureaucracy. It will protect America's waterways, while keeping Washington's hands off of the things that it really has no business regulating. The Environmental Protection Agency would have to consult with the States to make sure that we have the approach that works best everywhere--not just the approach that Washington likes best. They would not be able to just listen to the echo chamber of phony comments concocted by their own lobbying campaign. Now, this bill gives certainty and clarity to farmers, to hard- working ranchers, to small business owners and their families. It makes sure that people can continue to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes. They should be preserved and protected. This bipartisan bill protects Americans from runaway bureaucracy--unaccountable, unelected. It restores Washington's attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before. The American people do not need more bureaucratic overreach. We do not need more redtape. Congress should act immediately to stop this outrageous regulation before it goes into effect. The Senate should take up and pass this bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 25, 26, 74, and 107; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that following disposition of the nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session; further, that all time in executive session count postcloture on the TPA bill.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we expect some of these votes to be by voice vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor noting that my friend and colleague from Connecticut was just on the floor talking about the President's health care law. It is interesting that he would do so at a time when we are seeing headline after headline about ObamaCare plan premiums increasing again all over the country. Remember what the President said. He said: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said premiums would go down by $2,500 for a family of four. What we have seen is premiums go up across the country. Now my colleague from Connecticut says--in spite of all the money being spent on the President's health care law, premiums are still going up. In his home State of Connecticut, they are going up, and they are going up across the country. There is a headline in the Connecticut Mirror: ``Insurers seek rate hikes for 2016 ObamaCare plans.'' That is in Connecticut. You know, it is interesting. I heard my colleague talking about the upcoming Supreme Court case of King v. Burwell, the implications of that case. He said the Republicans did not have a plan. Where is the President's plan? He is the guy who made this mess. This is the President's law. This is the law the Democrats voted for. You know, there is that old sign in the Pottery Barn: If you break it, you bought it. The President broke the health care system in this country. If the Supreme Court rules that he has acted illegally--he is the one who made the mess; he is the one who created the problem. When my colleague from Connecticut says ``Where is the Republicans' plan?'' I say ``Where is the President's plan?'' It is interesting. The President does have a plan to protect the insurance companies, but he has no plans to protect the American public, the American taxpayers. He has a built-in plan for the insurance companies so that when they wrote the policies this year, there was a decision made by the White House that those policies could be canceled by the insurance companies if the Supreme Court ruled that the President acted illegally. Yet, there is no path, no safe path for those American taxpayers who thought they were obeying the law if the court rules the way I believe they should based on the reading of the law. So of course people around the country are very concerned when they see once again that the insurance they are mandated to buy by President Obama and the Democrats, the insurance they are mandated to buy by the health care law is going to be even more expensive next year than this year. In Connecticut--the first paragraph of this article: ``Insurance companies selling health plans through the state's health insurance exchange are seeking to raise rates next year. . . .'' It goes on to say: ``Despite that, the carriers projected increased costs, citing rising claims expenses and a planned reduction in protection against high-cost claims. . . .'' Reduction in protection against high-cost claims. Why? Well, it says ``from a temporary federal program intended to provide stability for insurers during the initial years of the health law.'' This was the bailout of the insurance companies that President Obama and the Democrats built into the President's health care law to get them to go along. It says, ``The rate filings are proposals, not actual changes.'' Proposals, not changes. It says, ``The insurance department will now analyze the proposals, accept public comments. . . .'' This is the Connecticut Insurance Department. Well, you know, a lot of members of the public in Connecticut filed comments. I have them to share with the Presiding Officer and with our listeners today. These are the constituents of the Senator from Connecticut, who comes here to the floor and says things are working great in Connecticut. These are his constituents who say: I am barely making ends meet as it is. I was under the understanding that this was to be AFFORDABLE-- With all the letters of ``affordable'' in capital letters-- --healthcare. So far it has been nothing but a burden. This is a constituent in Connecticut--``nothing but a burden.'' He said: I was happy with my previous plan. . . . Weren't so many Americans happy with their previous plan before the President, who told them if they liked it, they could keep it--well, that is why there is so much disappointment out there. And the President's statement was called ``the lie of the year.'' This person was happy with his previous plan, but it was eliminated as of January 1, 2015. ``My health care,'' he says, ``went up $100 for less coverage.'' People are paying more and getting less, and Democrats wonder why this health care law is not popular. All across the country, people are paying more, getting less, and the Democrats are clueless as to why this is so unpopular. ``Please do not allow this increase.'' That is just one of the constituents who wrote to the Connecticut Insurance Department, a public comment. Here is another: Please no rate increase. I cannot afford the insurance now. I pay $594.00 a month for myself, a 60 year old female in relatively good health. I have a $5,500 deductible. I cannot afford to have some testing done because I don't have the deductible amount. But we heard the Senator come to the floor and say all of these people have insurance. This person figures--well, she has insurance, but it is of no value to her with her $5,500 deductible. She can't afford to have testing because of the deductible. She says: It is bad enough we have the big security breach and we have to worry about our personal info stolen in the years to come and you now want to increase our rates. That is what we are seeing happening across the country, that is what we are seeing happening in Connecticut, and that is what the public is telling the Connecticut Insurance Department dealing with these proposed health rate increases. This is another: I am writing to you regarding the . . . rate increase filing in particular and the health insurance filings in general. I am an individual buyer who does not qualify for federal subsidies due to my income level. I have been buying my family plan since before the Affordable Care Act has been passed and implemented. They had insurance and do not qualify for a subsidy. Continuing: Since then-- Since the Affordable Care Act was passed-- buying a family health plan in CT has become almost financially impossible for me to buy as it has become a real financial burden for me. Currently, I am paying some 22% of my Federal AGI for a high deductible (family deductible of $11,000) HSA plan. Now, the Senator from Connecticut may say: Hey, great. This person has insurance, insurance they can't afford and they cannot use because of the deductible. It says: As you are certainly well aware before the passing of the Care Act my premium for health care was much more affordable. Why is it? Well, it is because the President decided he wanted to transfer money from one group to another, and this individual who had insurance that he liked, the family liked, worked for them, they could afford, now cannot afford, cannot use because of the deductible. They are still insured, so I guess the Senator from Connecticut would call that a big win for one of his constituents who is clearly being hurt. This is another one that has come in from Connecticut: Are you nuts? This cannot go on. My ``affordable'' insurance has already increased $200/mo and now you want more? My income doesn't even increase this much. Paying the penalty for no insurance is a better option than this. DO NOT INCREASE! Learn how to live within your means like the rest of us do. This is what we are seeing. Is this a surprise that this continues to be a very unpopular law. Should it surprise? It surprises the Democrats, obviously, when they see that in poll after poll, month after month, the health care law is more unpopular than it is popular, and the reason is people don't see it as good deal for them. They feel, in terms of their own health, their own families, their own communities, this health care law has been a burden on them, in their lives, and has impacted them as a family. There is another one from Connecticut: The ACA raised our health insurance expense (both premiums and deductibles) by 67% for similar coverage! Sixty-seven percent for similar coverage. Remember, the President told a lot of people that what they had coverage on wasn't any good. It wasn't good enough for the President--might have been good enough for that family but not good enough for the President. So they had to buy, for similar coverage, premiums and deductibles up 67%. Continuing: Please do not approve this additional increase. This person says they would be fine with their own policy, but they weren't allowed to keep it because of the health care law. I could go on and on. It is astonishing what we are hearing from the Connecticut Insurance Department, with a response, when they were asked, and put out the filings of the requests for higher rates. It is just interesting. Here is one more comment from Southbury, CT: The alleged purpose of this pool, and the affordable care act-- Alleged purpose. Remember Nancy Pelosi: First, you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Continuing: The alleged purpose of this pool, and the affordable care act, was to get and keep health care costs under control. My (subsidized) monthly premium is more than double what I paid before being forced into this pool. . . . If the ACA is a failure, then why am I being penalized? People all across the country believe they are personally being penalized because of the failure of the Obama health care plan and this administration who chose to, with one party and one party alone, force a very expensive, unworkable, really unaffordable, unmanageable, unexplainable health care system down the throats of the American public. So we will see what happens when the Supreme Court rules at the end of next month. Secretary of Health and Human Services Burwell said that the administration has no plan. The President told me personally--and the White House earlier this year--he had no plan to deal with the Supreme Court ruling that says his actions were illegal, and he has no plan to deal with so many people who thought they were following the law, who have been hurt by the law. But he has a plan to bail out the insurance companies and to protect them because we know where the President is in terms of looking at this. And his proposal, his quintessential piece of legislation--the one named after him--has clearly done a significant amount of damage to families all across the country. I believe it has harmed the health care system, which has always been the best in the world. We needed health care reform in the country. We did not need what President Obama forced down the throats of the American people with people across the country saying no. People knew what they wanted in health care reform. What they knew they wanted was the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost, and they have not received that under the President's health care law. 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, today, President Obama is heading to Connecticut, where I understand he is going to be addressing the graduates at the Coast Guard Academy. He plans to talk about threats to our national security. I think many Americans would be astonished to learn the President's planned discussion on national security is going to center on climate change. After all, Americans understand there are much more immediate threats facing our Nation, such as the fall of Ramadi in Iraq and the brutal terrorist attacks by ISIS. These are clear examples of the real threats that must be addressed by President Obama. I would encourage the President to spend this time today addressing America's most pressing national security threats. The President and his national security team must deliver strong leadership and an effective strategy to fight the terrorists who want to attack our country and kill more Americans. This should be the focus of the President's speech today. This should be our most pressing national security concern. ObamaCare Mr. President, I would also like to talk about an important issue that is facing Americans and they will soon need to be seeing, which is that next month the Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision in the case of King v. Burwell. This is a case that has been brought on behalf of millions of Americans who have been harmed by the President's unlawful expansion of his unworkable and unaffordable health care law. Sometime before the end of June, the Court is going to announce if the law passed by Congress means what it says or if it means what the President wishes it had said. The law, written by Democrats in Congress, written behind closed doors, only authorized insurance subsidies for one group, and the President had the IRS pay subsidies to another group. The President gave bureaucrats much more power to control the health care choices and decisions of people who never should have been caught under the law. The Supreme Court should strike down this alarming overreach by the President. If it does, that will give Congress an opportunity to address some of the devastating problems the health care law has caused. It seems like every week we see another headline about another damaging side effect of the President's health care law. Here is one example from a story yesterday morning, the front page of Investor's Business Daily: ``ObamaCare Rates Will Soar In 2016, Early Data Signal.'' Average 18.16 percent hike proposed. It is an astonishing fact that people are facing--increasing rates, soaring again in 2016. Insurance companies that sell plans in the ObamaCare exchange are starting to set their rates for next year. There are a series of articles that continue to come out. One says that the top ObamaCare exchange insurers in six different States where the 2016 rate requests have already been filed--and they will come in every State--are seeking rate changes that average 18.6 percent just next year alone. Early reports range from an alarming 36-percent hike sought by the dominant insurer in Tennessee to a hefty 23-percent average increase requested by Oregon insurers. People across the country saw these rates go up at the beginning of this year, and now they are facing it again. They are starting to learn that it was not just a 1-year deal. There is another story that came out May 7 in the Connecticut Mirror. The article says that insurance companies selling health plans through the State's health insurance exchange are seeking to raise rates next year, with an average increase somewhere between 2 and nearly 14 percent. You take a look; it is outrageous. I know the Senator from Connecticut has come to the floor saying that we should be celebrating ObamaCare--celebrating it, he said. Well, with these rate increases for families in Connecticut, it looks to me like the party is over. ObamaCare was supposed to bring costs down. That is what the President promised. He said premiums would go down by an average of $2,500 per year, per family. It has not happened. For an average family who gets coverage through their work, the premiums have gone up about $3,500 since the President took office in 2009. Why do we still see headlines about premiums going up by 14 percent or even 2 percent? Why are they going up at all? Why are the promises Democrats made about the health care law not coming true? Why are ObamaCare rates set to soar again in 2016? Why are people in places like Connecticut still seeing headlines about their costs going up by 14 percent? A few weeks ago, the Democratic leader said on the floor that ObamaCare is a ``smashing success.'' He stood right over there and said it--it is a ``smashing success.'' Is there a Democrat who thinks that a 14-percent increase to families in Connecticut is a smashing success or that an 18.6-percent average across the country is a smashing success? We are going to see this same story about soaring insurance rates repeated all across America. And it is not just the ObamaCare premiums that are causing problems for families. Here is a headline from the Washington Post on Friday: ``Insured, but still not able to afford care.'' ``For one in four who bought health coverage, some costs remained too high.'' So they have insurance, but they are still not able to get care. People who have insurance have been avoiding going to see the doctor. That is according to a new study by the liberal advocacy group called Families USA. This was an advocacy group who was a huge supporter of the President's health care law and a huge supporter of the President. Even this group has to admit that coverage does not equal care. There is a difference. The group's executive director is quoted in this article in the Washington Post as saying, ``The key culprit as to why people have been unable to afford medical care despite coverage is high deductibles.'' Well, I agree. Many people's deductibles are too high. The reason the deductibles have gotten so high and so out of hand all of a sudden is that the health care law included so many coverage mandates. Democrats who voted for this said they know better than the people at home what kind of insurance they need. That is what the President said. The President said: I know better than you do. I know what your family needs. You do not. That is why the deductibles are so high. Insurance had to raise their premiums to cover the cost of all these new Washington mandates. They had to raise deductibles as well. This year, the average deductible for an ObamaCare Silver Plan is almost $3,000 for a single person and more than $6,000 for a family. People have Washington-mandated coverage, but they still cannot afford to get care. So people are putting off going to the doctor. They are skipping tests. They are skipping followup care because of the high deductibles and copays. Why are people across the country having to put off getting care? Because they cannot afford it. Is that what Democrats mean when they say the law has been a smashing success, when the minority leader comes to the floor and says it is a smashing success? All across the country, Americans are struggling with the cost of health care under this health care law. There was a study out this morning. In the paper The Hill, Sarah Ferris writes: ``Underinsured'' population has doubled in the United States to 31 million. One-quarter of people with healthcare coverage are paying so much for deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that they are considered underinsured. Thirty-one million Americans. Rising deductibles--even under ObamaCare--are the biggest problem for most people who are considered underinsured. Doubled. The number of underinsured people under the health care law has now doubled. People are paying more as a result of the Democrats' health care law, and they are going to be paying even more next year and the year after that until we are able to do something to stop it. Republicans are offering real solutions that will end these destructive and expensive ObamaCare side effects. That means giving Americans and giving States the freedom, the choice, and the control over their health care decisions once again. Republicans understand that coverage does not equal care. Republicans understand what American families were asking for before this health care law was ever passed. That is what they are still asking for today. It is time for Democrats to admit that their health care law did not work--it did not work out the way they promised--and to start working with Republicans on reforms that will give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week we passed an important bill that protected the rights of the American people. It said the people in Congress have a right to be involved in an agreement the President negotiates on Iran's nuclear program. Well, that was an important piece of legislation, and I was glad to see it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill on trade promotion authority, which we have been talking about this week, is also very important. This bill is about U.S. trade with other countries and the proper role Congress should play in that. It is also very much about America's future, and that is why Republicans are so committed to this piece of legislation. The problem is Senate Democrats have pulled the rug out from under the American people and the President. They blocked the Senate from even considering this important piece of legislation. This is not the normal story of Democrats v. Republicans or Senator Reid v. Senator McConnell. Oh, no. This is a story about Senator Reid v. President Obama. America's economy grew by just 0.2 percent in the first quarter of this year. When the Democratic leader orders the Senators on his side of the aisle to block this bill, is he saying the American people should be satisfied with 0.2 percent growth? Is that satisfaction? If we are going to get America's economy going and growing again, we need to increase opportunities for America's farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers to sell their products overseas. According to the Commerce Department, 95 percent of the world's customers live outside the United States. That means there are billions of people around the world who want to buy American products, and that means creating jobs for Americans who make those products. It means lower prices for many of the products Americans want to buy at home. It means more money for the American economy, which is good for all of us. Now, all of that comes from more U.S. trade with other countries. The bill we are debating right now is very important to American families and to the American economy. Trade promotion authority is a valuable tool. It helps make sure there are strong rules that hold other countries accountable for their unfair trade practices. It also helps us forge agreements to tear down the barriers that block American goods from foreign markets. The sooner we renew trade promotion authority, the sooner American families can start reaping the benefits. It is outrageous Senate Democrats are keeping us from taking this step to help these families all across the country. The benefits of trade are substantial for places such as my home State of Wyoming. Exports from Wyoming to other countries amounted to almost $2 billion last year--$2 billion. The Wyoming chemical industry alone exported nearly $1 billion worth of material. One of our most important chemical exports is soda ash, which is a chemical used to make things such as glass and detergents. It is the largest inorganic chemical export in the United States, and it is responsible for thousands of American jobs. Our producers face high tariffs in some countries, and they are competing with China for the customers. If we pass this bill and follow that up with the kind of trade deals it allows, we could add another $40 million in new soda ash exports, and that means a lot of jobs here at home. Trade promotion authority helps give American producers a fair chance to compete for business overseas. In Wyoming, our farmers and ranchers also export beef, lamb, and grain. We export machinery, minerals, and energy from our oil and gas producers. Wyoming's presence in the global marketplace has been increasing, and we as a nation cannot afford to stop that progress now. We need more access to more markets and we need fair competition. So the question is: Why are the Democrats standing in the way of all of that? Democrats are blocking more than just the money for American workers and our economy. Economic prosperity itself strengthens our Nation and makes it more secure. Ronald Reagan once said: ``Our national security and economic strength are indivisible.'' He understood that national defense is expensive and that America needs a strong economy to pay for it. Reagan understood that American trade with other countries can help strengthen our military alliances as well. American goods sold overseas provide an American presence all around the world. They are economic boots on the ground. The Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, said something similar in a speech last month. He said: ``Our military strength ultimately rests on the foundation of our vibrant, unmatched, and growing economy.'' He said the kinds of trade deals this bill would promote are ``as important to me as another aircraft carrier.'' Now, that is the current Secretary of Defense agreeing with what President Ronald Reagan said years ago. The Defense Secretary also talked about what all of us in the Senate know to be true: If America does not continue to lead in global commerce and does not attract more trading partners, someone else will. More likely than not, that is going to be China. America needs to step up and start negotiating effective, fair, and enforceable trade agreements or we are going to be allowing China to write the rules for global trade. If that happens, every Senator here knows those rules will not favor American workers and American exports. Senate Democrats know that, and they are still standing in the way of this legislation. Last year, our exports supported nearly 12 million American jobs. That is an increase of 2 million jobs since 2009. It is great news, but it is not enough. According to the latest numbers that came out last Friday, there are another 17 million Americans who are either unemployed, are working part time because they cannot find full-time work or have absolutely given up and stopped looking for a job. There are 17 million Americans who are waiting for our economy to really start growing again. We need to create more stable, long-term jobs for those Americans who have been left behind by the weak economy over the past 6 years. More U.S. trade with other countries can help make that happen. This trade promotion authority bill is the first step toward reaching that goal and Democrats know that. Why then are they fighting so hard to make sure this bill fails? Why are they fighting so hard to block those jobs? This legislation would give the President a clear roadmap--a roadmap to follow while negotiating trade deals. It also ensures that Congress and the American people have a say about whether a deal goes through. That part is extremely important. I mentioned the fight we just had with the White House to make sure the American people and Congress can review an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. Well, this bill says right up front that Congress will get to have an up-or-down vote on any trade deals. This isn't about expanding the powers of the President. I know a lot of Senators have serious concerns about how President Obama has abused his authority in unchecked and unprecedented ways. A lot of Americans have those same concerns. This bill is not just about this President. It is about the next President and the one after that. It is about American workers, American families, and growing the American economy for all of us. It is about making sure America continues to lead and Americans continue to prosper. American exports to other countries are the key to this. This bill on the floor right now can make sure all of that happens, and it makes sure the American people have their say. It is time for Senate Democrats to call off their destructive fight with the President. It is time for Senate Democrats to stop blocking trade, stop blocking jobs, and stop blocking progress for American families and for our economy. 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 take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Reed Barrett 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. Reed is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and is a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. He graduated from the University of Wyoming where he was a psychology major. 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 Reed 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. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Diego Zepeda, once again, for his hard work as an intern in my Sheridan, WY office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Diego is from Gillette, WY, and a graduate of Campbell County High School. He currently attends Northern Wyoming Community College where he is studying business management. He has again 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 during his time in my office. I want to thank Diego 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. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kristen Trohkimoinen for her hard work as an intern in my Indian Affairs Committee office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Kristen is a native of Casper, WY, and is a graduate of Natrona County High School. She is a student at the University of Wyoming where she is pursuing a degree in political science and international studies. 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 Kristen 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, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mickala Schmidt, once again, for her hard work as an intern in my Casper, WY office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Mickala is a native of Casper, WY, where she graduated from Natrona County High School. She attends Casper College where she is pursuing a degree in international studies and education. She has again 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 Mickala 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.