John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Catherine Mercer for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC offices. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Catherine is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and is a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming where she is pursuing a degree in psychology. 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 Catherine 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 Erin Jarnagin for her hard work as an intern in my Republican Policy Committee office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Erin is a native of Green River, WY, and is a graduate of Green River High School. She graduated from the University of Wyoming where she was an international studies major, and from The University of Chicago where she received her master's degree. 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 Erin 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 Briana Black 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. Briana is a native of Casper, WY, and is a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming where she is pursuing a degree in 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 Briana 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 Tim Stanton for his hard work as an intern in my Republican Policy Committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tim is a student at the Colby College in Waterville, ME, where he pursuing a degree in government. 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 Tim 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 Birney Brayton 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. Birney is a native of Sheridan, WY, and is a graduate of Sheridan High School. He is a student at the University of Wyoming where he pursuing a degree in political science. 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 Birney 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for the past couple of weeks, we have been talking about very important things on the floor of the Senate. One of the most important has been the possible deal with Iran over the country's nuclear program. I believe an agreement that could stop Iran's efforts to get nuclear weapons would be enormously significant. Making sure the American people are involved in this process is also extremely important. There is bipartisan agreement on both of those things. We are still debating the Iran sanctions review act simply because it is so important. The debate has been going on. This bill goes a long way toward protecting the right of the American people to have a say on any deal and the right of Congress to review the specifics of that deal. I know there are Senators who have ideas for how to make this bill even better. I had an amendment last week, and I appreciated the chance to debate the amendment and to have a vote on it. That is the important part of this process. It is a big reason why the Senate has been so much more productive, I believe, this year than it was under the previous majority leader. Under Republican leadership, Senators of both parties have gotten back the right to really represent our constituents--something we were elected to do. We have gotten back the right to work through committees, the right to offer amendments and to make our case on the floor. Republicans and Democrats agree that the bill before us right now is important. Congressional review of any Iranian deal is absolutely essential. We also agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a global threat to everyone everywhere. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate know it would be better to have no deal at all than to have a bad deal. Even President Obama has said that. The concern many Americans have right now is that the deal the President seems prepared to sign is nowhere near strong enough. When I go home to Wyoming every weekend, as I did this past weekend, the people I talk with don't believe Iran has earned the right to be trusted. They are very concerned that the President is ready to sign a very bad deal. I think those concerns are absolutely justified. Iran has avoided scrutiny of its nuclear program for years. What has happened to make the President think all of a sudden that Iran will come clean? I have not seen anything happen out there. President Obama and his team have been too willing to negotiate without conditions and too hesitant to take the strong stand that I believe must be taken. The President never wanted these economic sanctions in the first place. He said the sanctions would ruin his chances of negotiating a deal at all. Remember that? Well, Congress insisted anyway. Those sanctions did not drive Iran away; it is the sanctions themselves that brought Iran to the negotiating table. Now the President admits that the sanctions, which he opposed, were a good idea. He still wanted to get rid of them as quickly as possible. The President wanted members of his administration to do all of the negotiating in private, and he wanted to decide by himself what is best. Republicans and Democrats both said that Congress needs to review any deal before getting rid of the sanctions--the sanctions imposed by Congress. We said that he does not have the right to make such important decisions about sanctions imposed by Congress. He does not have the right to eliminate them by himself. It is very important that we keep asking questions about any potential deal, questions such as, what exactly is the Obama administration agreeing to on sanctions relief? I mean, it is interesting. Iran has said that the final deal must remove all of the economic sanctions on day No. 1. The administration has said that the sanctions will be lifted in phases and only if Iran complies with different steps along the way. Well, which is it? There is a big difference between what the President is saying and what Iran is saying. The administration already gave Iran sanction relief from sanctions under the interim agreement in 2013. We saw how that turned out. It has given Iran access to $12 billion in much needed hard currency since then. The Obama administration has been unclear on exactly how much actual additional currency it plans to release under the final agreement. Tens of billions? I heard a number as high as over $100 billion with sanctions relief. Well, once the rest of the sanctions are lifted, how can we make sure Iran does not use the money to support terrorists who want to attack us, who want to attack America? Iran has a long history of supporting terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that where the money is going to go? I do not believe Iran is going to use the money to build roads or hospitals or schools. What about Iran's plans for their nuclear program? Now Iran says they want to do nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Have our negotiators made any progress on holding Iran to its word on that specific point? Back in November of 2013, Iran signed a framework agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency that was supposed to address the possible military aspects of Iran's nuclear program. It named 12 specific areas where Iran was going to address those concerns. The Director General of that organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, now says that Iran has addressed only 1 of the 12 it promised to address--only 1 of 12 things it was supposed to do under the last deal from 2013. What has changed since then to make President Obama and the Obama administration think Iran is going to comply with this deal? Why should we suddenly trust Iran now? What is there in the agreement that will force Iran to do what it says it will do? Congress needs to keep a very close eye on any final agreement. Whatever happens, a deal with Iran must be enforceable, it must be verifiable, and it must be accountable. We know President Obama is looking to finish out his time by polishing his legacy. Congress needs to make sure this deal is about protecting America and protecting Americans, not protecting the President's diplomatic legacy. The stakes are too high. So far, there are too many unanswered questions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize Dr. Walt Nolte, who will retire on June 30, 2015, after 11 years as president of Casper College. Dr. Nolte and his wife Becky joined Casper College on July 1, 2004, becoming the seventh chief executive officer in the college's 63-year history. He served as an administrator in several States, but Casper College was the institution he chose to call home longer than any other. Dr. Nolte has been Casper College's ``Great Communicator.'' He is a leader guided by the principle of doing what is best for the team. He has actively encouraged and developed open dialog between the college's governing bodies. He has provided constant encouragement and participation within the college community to uphold Casper College's mission: education for a lifetime. His understanding of the value of community partnership has enabled the college to build one of the highest rates of civic engagement of any Wyoming college. In addition to guiding an excellent curriculum, Dr. Nolte has always maintained that the campus facilities must be a priority. He is a leader who looks to the future and meets challenges head-on. In just 11 years, he was able to secure voter and community support for critical improvements to Casper College during a national economic downturn. Dr. Nolte has been recognized at the regional and national level for his leadership. The National Council for Marketing and Public Relations District No. 4 named him their 2011 Pacesetter of the Year. He was also named a distinguished graduate of the University of Texas at Austin College of Education, and in 2011, Walt was named the first recipients of the Tacoma County Community College Distinguished Alumnus Award. John E. Roueche, Ph.D., arguably the foremost scholar on community college leadership, recently wrote Dr. Nolte is one of those rare leaders who practices well what he preaches, leading by his own excellent example. He is also a leader who is quite comfortable in his own skin and delights in the success of all on his team. He truly understands that the community college is of, by and for the community. Dr. Walt Nolte's legacy will benefit the college, the community of Casper, and the great State of Wyoming for years to come. My wife Bobbi and I wish him the very best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today, for the first time in 6 years, Congress will pass a budget, and we are passing a budget that actually balances. This fulfills another basic responsibility of governing and an important promise Republicans made to the American people. In advance of this vote, I wish to take a moment to applaud Chairman Mike Enzi for his leadership on this issue. Because of his strong work, our balanced budget will help grow our economy, reduce the debt, repeal ObamaCare, and rein in Washington overreach. Our balanced budget proves that the Senate is fully working again on behalf of the American people. ObamaCare Mr. President, I wish to speak about another issue that is also important to Americans across the country, an issue which I hear about as I travel the State of Wyoming and which I heard about this weekend. Last week, the Democratic leader came to the floor of the Senate and he made some very interesting statements about the President's health care law. He said ObamaCare is a smashing success. That was last week. On Monday, we had this headline in the Wall Street Journal: U.S. Emergency Room Visits Keep Climbing: People on Medicaid turn to hospital care when doctor access is limited, new survey suggests. It is interesting to take a look at this large story and learn about how the number of visits to emergency rooms keeps climbing in spite of what the President promised during the debate of the President's health care law. The article goes on to say: Emergency room visits continue to climb in the second year of the Affordable Care Act, contradicting the law's supporters who had predicted a decline in traffic as more people gained access to doctors and other health care providers. This is according to a survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians. They should know; they are the ones in the emergency room treating patients. The group says that people whom the health care law pushed on to Medicaid--pushed on to Medicaid--are having trouble getting appointments or even finding a doctor to take care of them because it is someone who doesn't take their new coverage. Does the Democratic minority leader think that is a smashing success? This is a survey of over 2,000 emergency room doctors. Seventy-five percent of them said they have seen increases in emergency room care since 2014. Only one out of 20 ER doctors said they have seen a decrease. The article quotes one doctor, Dr. Howard Mell, as saying: ``There was a grand theory the law would reduce ER visits.'' A grand theory? Yes, it was. He said: ``Well, guess what, it hasn't happened. Visits are going up despite the [law], and in a lot of cases because of it.'' That is according to one emergency room doctor who sees the results of the Obama health care law every day in the emergency room where he takes care of patients. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. We have seen the warning signs coming now for a while. Back in December, the Department of Health and Human Services found that more than half of the health care providers listed for Medicaid plans--half listed as taking Medicaid patients-- couldn't schedule appointments for patients, and they are even listed with Health and Human Services as taking care of Medicaid patients. This is only of the doctors who actually care for Medicaid patients in the first place. We know that about half of doctors won't see Medicaid patients at all because the reimbursement is so low for taking care of them. For more than one-quarter of the doctors, the wait time for a patient to actually get an appointment is more than a month. Does the Democratic leader think that is a smashing success, waiting more than a month to see a doctor? Last year, almost half of doctors said they had seen an increase in emergency room visits, and now we see it is much higher. Some supporters of the law last year said that wasn't important. They said: Don't worry, the numbers will drop off after the first year as more people get primary care physicians. Well, it hasn't happened, and it has actually gotten worse. About half of the ER doctors saw an increase in the first year of ObamaCare coverage and 75 percent saw an increase this year, the second year. It is not getting better. It continues to get worse, to the point that USA TODAY had an article dated May 4, yesterday, page 1: ``ER Visits Surge Despite ObamaCare.'' It says: Three-quarters of emergency room doctors say they are seeing ER patient visits surge since ObamaCare took effect-- just the opposite of what many Americans expected would happen. It is not what many Americans expected would happen. Look at what the President said would happen. Back in 2009, the President was trying to pass the law, and President Obama said this: ``If everybody's got coverage, then they're not going to go to the emergency room for treatment.'' That was one of the biggest reasons the law required everyone in America to have insurance coverage. Remember, that is the mandate. It is called the individual mandate, and it remains extremely unpopular today. The President kept saying it over the years. He said it early on, he said it during the debate, and he said it after the law passed. He continues to hold this position in spite of the fact that 75 percent of emergency room doctors--2,000 doctors who actually work in emergency rooms--are saying: It is not true, Mr. President. The ERs are getting more and more crowded. We see what happens when an ER gets more crowded: The wait time goes up, the mortality rates for patients trying to get treatment there goes up--because of the health care law. In 2013, the President told one group of people: ``It means that all the providers around here, instead of having to take in folks in the emergency room, they suddenly have customers who have insurance.'' The President's statements continue to fly in the face of reality. According to the people who really know what is going on, the medical coverage is not keeping people out of emergency rooms. It has become crystal clear that coverage does not equal care. Not only is ObamaCare coverage not delivering care, in many cases the system to provide the coverage isn't even working. There was an article last Friday in the Washington Post. The headline was ``Nearly half of ObamaCare exchanges are struggling over their future.'' It says: ``Nearly half of the 17 insurance marketplaces set up by the states and the District [of Columbia] under President Obama's health laws are struggling financially.'' Does the minority leader think that is a smashing success? According to this article, ``many of the online exchanges are wrestling with surging costs, especially for balky technology and expensive consumer call centers--and tepid enrollment numbers.'' It talks about problems in Minnesota, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Colorado. In Oregon, the exchange has failed so spectacularly that the State had to shut it down entirely. The Washington Post says: ``States have already received nearly $5 billion in Federal grants to establish the online marketplaces.'' That is $5 billion that hard-working American taxpayers had to pay to set up these exchanges, and half of these exchanges, in spite of all of that taxpayer money, are now struggling financially. This article quotes one expert, Sabrina Corlette, who is a project director at Georgetown University's Center for Health Insurance Reforms. She said: ``A lot of people are going to want to know: What happened to all those taxpayer dollars?'' Well, that is what a lot of Senators want to know. That is exactly what Senators on this side of the aisle have been asking for quite a while now. What happened to all of that hard-earned taxpayer money? How much of that $5 billion was wasted? The States with these failing exchanges are now looking at raising taxes and raising fees on everybody else's insurance claims. So in half of the States, the exchanges where people are supposed to sign up for coverage are failing. Billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, and States are looking at charging people even more. That is the President's solution for health care in America. People who do get coverage and want to see a doctor may have to wait for more than a month. They may end up going to the emergency room along with millions of other eople since ObamaCare's mandates began. Does the minority leader, who came to the floor last week calling this health care law a smashing success, really think that is so? This is not what the American people wanted from health care reform. People knew what they wanted, and they wanted something very simple: They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. ObamaCare has failed on every one of those things. It is not a smashing success. It is time for us to finally give Americans the health care they were asking for all along. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Insurance Capital Rules and FSOC Process.''

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, I spoke on the floor about a new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. This report talked about the great progress we have made so far in this Congress, as far as getting things done in a bipartisan way. I believe that is good news. Republicans in the Senate are committed to continuing our progress and to holding more votes on areas of bipartisan agreement. So I want to speak about something Senators on both sides of the aisle agree we can do to protect America's navigable waters. Our rivers, lakes and other waterways are among America's most treasured resources. In my home State of Wyoming, we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world: the Snake River, the Wind River, dozens of others. The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe and pristine for our children and our grandchildren. They understand there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways, while at the same time allowing it to be used as natural resources. We have done it for years under the Clean Water Act. That is the right way to do it. The wrong way to do it is for Washington bureaucrats--bureaucrats--unelectable, unaccountable, to write harsh and inflexible rules that could block any use of water or even use of land in much of the country. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule, a new rule that would expand the Clean Water Act in what I believe is a dangerous new direction. The rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the United States. Under the rule, this term could include ditches, it would include dry areas where water only flows for a short time after it rains. Federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other manmade features as waters of the United States. What the administration is proposing now simply makes no sense. Under this new rule, the new rule they are proposing, isolated ponds could be regulated as waters of the United States. This is the kind of pond that might form in a low-lying piece of land with no connection to a river or a stream. It could be in someone's back yard. An isolated pond is not navigable water. That is not what the law was designed to protect. This is bipartisan, and there is bipartisan agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business, none at all, regulating an isolated pond as a water of the United States. Under this newly proposed rule, agriculture water management systems could be regulated as waters of the United States. We are talking about irrigation ditches. An irrigation ditch is not navigable water. These are manmade ditches that people dig to move water from one place to another to grow crops. This kind of agriculture water is not what the law was designed to protect. There is bipartisan agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business regulating an irrigation ditch as waters of the United States. Under this outrageously broad new rule, Washington bureaucrats would now have a say in how farmers and ranchers and families use their own property. It would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate private property just based on things such as whether it is used by animals or birds or even insects. It could regulate any water that moves over land or infiltrates into the ground. Well, this is an ominously far-reaching definition. It is the wrong way--the wrong way--to protect America 's precious water resources. This rule is not designed to protect the traditional waters of the United States, it is designed to expand the power of Washington bureaucrats. Now, there is a better way to protect America's water, and there is bipartisan support for it in this body. Today, I have introduced the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, along with Senators Donnelly, Inhofe, Heitkamp, Roberts, Manchin, Sullivan, Rounds, Blunt, McConnell, Capito, and Fischer. That is bipartisan. It is a bipartisan agreement that says we need a different approach. This bill says yes to clean water and no to extreme bureaucracy. It will give the Environmental Protection Agency the direction it needs, the direction to write a strong and reasonable rule that truly protects America's waterways, one that keeps Washington's hands off things such as irrigation ditches, isolated ponds, and groundwater, one that does not allow the determination to be based on plants and insects, one that protects streams that could carry dangerous pollutants to navigable waters or wetlands that protect those waters from pollutants. It would make sure Washington bureaucrats comply, comply with other laws and Executive orders that, well, they have been avoiding. They would have to do an economic analysis and conduct reviews to protect small businesses, to protect ranchers, to protect farmers. They would have to consult with the States. They have to make sure, by consulting with the States, that we have the approach that works best everywhere, not just the approach Washington likes best. The Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns are overblown. The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding about what their regulation covers. It says the Agency has no intention of regulating things like I have just described. The key word there is ``intention.'' This bill would help to make sure the rules are crystal clear. It gives certainty and clarity to farmers, to ranchers, and to small business owners and their families. People would be able to use their property without fear of Washington bureaucrats knocking on their door. We would also be able to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes that should be preserved and protected. This bipartisan bill does nothing to block legitimate protection of the true waters of the United States. It simply restores Washington's attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before. That is what this law should protect. This bill is one easy thing we can do to protect Americans from runaway bureaucracy. The Senate has been very productive so far this year. We are going to keep going. We are going to go with more ideas that have bipartisan support. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act is one of them. I want to thank some of the many cosponsors.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this year we commemorate the 50th anniversary of NOLS, the National Outdoor Leadership School. What started in Wyoming has now grown to 14 locations worldwide on six continents. NOLS locations stretch from the fjords of Norway and the Indian Himalayas to the Yukon and east Africa. In the last 50 years there have been over 250,000 graduates ranging in ages from 14 to over 70 years old. They come from all walks of life, from all 50 States, and numerous countries around the world. They come to learn mountaineering, kayaking, horse packing, sailing, backcountry skiing, caving, and wilderness medicine skills, just to name a few. As a doctor, I appreciate the importance NOLS places on outdoor medicine. The Wyss Wilderness Medicine Campus was designed and located to create an optimal learning environment for students of wilderness medicine. At the campus, classroom experience extends to the outdoors with real-life simulations in wild and realistic terrain. I find it very appropriate NOLS has its beginning in Wyoming. Like Wyoming, NOLS supports a diverse economic portfolio that benefits from energy, agriculture, hunting and fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation and education. Wyoming and NOLS both work towards a balanced approach to natural resource management that provides opportunities for a diversified energy portfolio while caring for Wyoming's world-class wildlife and wild places. One need not look any further than Lander, WY, for an example of balanced natural resource management. Lander is home to NOLS and gateway to the Wind River Range. At times, Lander has been a steel town and a supply hub during the gold boom. Today, Lander continues to be rich with energy and agricultural production. Wyoming and NOLS have shared strong leaders who work to find pragmatic and inclusive solutions to land management challenges. John Gans is one of those leaders. John has successfully carried on the tradition established by Paul Petzoldt, the founder of NOLS. After 20 years at the helm, he is the longest serving executive director of NOLS. Under John Gans' leadership, NOLS has been recognized nine times as one of the best places to work for. In 2012, he was recognized as a White House Champion of Change for his commitment to youth, wilderness and leadership. While NOLS' international programs have grown immensely during his time, John values the connections that exist between the town of Lander, NOLS staff, and graduates. Phil Nicholas, Marc Randolph, and Tori McClure are just a few examples of many graduates who have gone on to become successful businesspeople, educators, and leaders in the community and the Nation. Phil Nicholas is the current Wyoming Senate president and a former NOLS instructor. Tori McClure was the first woman to row solo across the Atlantic Ocean and the first woman to ski to the South Pole. Marc Randolph is a Cofounder of Netflix. One of the things that make NOLS alumni so successful is they have learned how to make decisions and face adversity. NOLS students suffer through extreme heat and cold and all types of weather conditions. NOLS students make decisions with consequences, and they apply these lessons to their lives. They come home with a new perspective on the world around them and their role within it. In this day and age of selfies and instant gratification, we need more people--and especially the youth--to realize they may not be the center of the universe. A perspective of hard work, sacrifice, and an appreciation and respect for nature needs to be taught and needs to be learned. In previous generations, this perspective was provided on family farms and ranches across the country. Gratefully, thanks to all the hard work and dedication of the NOLS staff, NOLS courses continue to provide this perspective to future leaders. I am confident in the future leadership of our communities and Nation because I know tomorrow's leaders are receiving NOLS instruction and experience today. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the National Outdoor Leadership School on their 50th anniversary. We are looking forward to another 50 years of success.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, I spoke on the floor about a new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. This report talked about the great progress we have made so far in this Congress, as far as getting things done in a bipartisan way. I believe that is good news. Republicans in the Senate are committed to continuing our progress and to holding more votes on areas of bipartisan agreement. So I want to speak about something Senators on both sides of the aisle agree we can do to protect America's navigable waters. Our rivers, lakes and other waterways are among America's most treasured resources. In my home State of Wyoming, we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world: the Snake River, the Wind River, dozens of others. The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe and pristine for our children and our grandchildren. They understand there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways, while at the same time allowing it to be used as natural resources. We have done it for years under the Clean Water Act. That is the right way to do it. The wrong way to do it is for Washington bureaucrats--bureaucrats--unelectable, unaccountable, to write harsh and inflexible rules that could block any use of water or even use of land in much of the country. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule, a new rule that would expand the Clean Water Act in what I believe is a dangerous new direction. The rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the United States. Under the rule, this term could include ditches, it would include dry areas where water only flows for a short time after it rains. Federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other manmade features as waters of the United States. What the administration is proposing now simply makes no sense. Under this new rule, the new rule they are proposing, isolated ponds could be regulated as waters of the United States. This is the kind of pond that might form in a low-lying piece of land with no connection to a river or a stream. It could be in someone's back yard. An isolated pond is not navigable water. That is not what the law was designed to protect. This is bipartisan, and there is bipartisan agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business, none at all, regulating an isolated pond as a water of the United States. Under this newly proposed rule, agriculture water management systems could be regulated as waters of the United States. We are talking about irrigation ditches. An irrigation ditch is not navigable water. These are manmade ditches that people dig to move water from one place to another to grow crops. This kind of agriculture water is not what the law was designed to protect. There is bipartisan agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business regulating an irrigation ditch as waters of the United States. Under this outrageously broad new rule, Washington bureaucrats would now have a say in how farmers and ranchers and families use their own property. It would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate private property just based on things such as whether it is used by animals or birds or even insects. It could regulate any water that moves over land or infiltrates into the ground. Well, this is an ominously far-reaching definition. It is the wrong way--the wrong way--to protect America 's precious water resources. This rule is not designed to protect the traditional waters of the United States, it is designed to expand the power of Washington bureaucrats. Now, there is a better way to protect America's water, and there is bipartisan support for it in this body. Today, I have introduced the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, along with Senators Donnelly, Inhofe, Heitkamp, Roberts, Manchin, Sullivan, Rounds, Blunt, McConnell, Capito, and Fischer. That is bipartisan. It is a bipartisan agreement that says we need a different approach. This bill says yes to clean water and no to extreme bureaucracy. It will give the Environmental Protection Agency the direction it needs, the direction to write a strong and reasonable rule that truly protects America's waterways, one that keeps Washington's hands off things such as irrigation ditches, isolated ponds, and groundwater, one that does not allow the determination to be based on plants and insects, one that protects streams that could carry dangerous pollutants to navigable waters or wetlands that protect those waters from pollutants. It would make sure Washington bureaucrats comply, comply with other laws and Executive orders that, well, they have been avoiding. They would have to do an economic analysis and conduct reviews to protect small businesses, to protect ranchers, to protect farmers. They would have to consult with the States. They have to make sure, by consulting with the States, that we have the approach that works best everywhere, not just the approach Washington likes best. The Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns are overblown. The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding about what their regulation covers. It says the Agency has no intention of regulating things like I have just described. The key word there is ``intention.'' This bill would help to make sure the rules are crystal clear. It gives certainty and clarity to farmers, to ranchers, and to small business owners and their families. People would be able to use their property without fear of Washington bureaucrats knocking on their door. We would also be able to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes that should be preserved and protected. This bipartisan bill does nothing to block legitimate protection of the true waters of the United States. It simply restores Washington's attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before. That is what this law should protect. This bill is one easy thing we can do to protect Americans from runaway bureaucracy. The Senate has been very productive so far this year. We are going to keep going. We are going to go with more ideas that have bipartisan support. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act is one of them. I want to thank some of the many cosponsors.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2016.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I noticed that the minority leader, the Senator from Nevada, had some nice things to say about me on Monday in his remarks. He said that I was ``relentless'' in my ``condemnation of ObamaCare.'' Those are his words. I appreciate the minority leader's kind remarks, because he is right. As a doctor, I am relentless in my condemnation of the President's health care law, a law that has done incredible harm to so many people all across this country. Minority Leader Reid also said that he had the facts about the law. Most of those facts seemed to come from a New York Times opinion column by the renowned liberal icon Paul Krugman. So let me share some real facts with the minority leader. The insurance plans offered in the health care exchanges are so expensive that they are a horrible deal for most Americans. That is why the President had to give out subsidies--to help hide the costs. The Congressional Budget Office said that Washington will spend $850 billion on those subsidies over the next decade. That is a fact. According to a new study by the health research company Avalere, ObamaCare plans are extremely unpopular among people who don't get the huge subsidies to buy the plan. Only 2 percent of the people who don't qualify for subsidies have actually bought insurance through the exchanges. That is a fact. It is an alarming sign of how high the cost of ObamaCare really is. It is not just the premiums that are sky high. This year, the average deductible for ObamaCare's silver plan is almost $3,000 for a single person and more than $6,000 for a family. Now, that is according to something called HealthPocket, which is a Web site that helps people actually compare insurance plans. That is a fact, and $6,000 is a lot of money for a hard-working family to pay for their deductible. Now, the minority leader said that Paul Krugman's opinions should be treated like facts--not as facts but like facts--because as Senator Reid said, ``this isn't some high school teacher talking about the merits of ObamaCare.'' Well, I agree on that point. High school teachers are far more likely to have had actual experience with the damage that is done by the ObamaCare health care law than has this New York Times columnist. That is what we learned from a report at KMOX TV in St. Louis on April 23. Their report talked about the Parkway School District in Missouri. It was Senator Reid who said this isn't some high school teacher. Well, this report from St. Louis said ObamaCare is forcing the school district to outsource the employment of substitute teachers. Why would they want to do that? It is in the face of a $4 million penalty for not offering health insurance to the part-time teachers. That is a fact. And those substitute teachers are real people who are being hurt by President Obama's health care law. Here is another fact reported by Politico on Monday afternoon. This was their headline on April 27: ``Study: ACA exchange enrollees take tax hit.'' According to a new study by the tax preparers at H&R Block, almost two-thirds of people enrolled in ObamaCare exchanges had to pay back some of their subsidy with their taxes this month. The average amount people owed the IRS was $729. That is a fact. It is a big hit to a lot of families who thought they were going to get help to pay for their ObamaCare premiums. It does not even count the people who decided that the insurance was just too expensive and decided not to buy it. According to H&R Block, those people paid the IRS an average tax penalty of $178. That is a fact. It is only going to be higher next year when people sit down and fill out their taxes. I remember another speech Senator Reid gave on the floor on ObamaCare. On February 26, 2014, he said: ``Despite all that good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told.'' ``All of them are untrue.'' That was Senator Reid a year ago. Republicans had been citing--this is Senator Reid--examples of people being harmed by ObamaCare, and Senator Reid said that all of them were ``stories made up from whole cloth.'' Well, here is a horror story from the minority leader's home State newspaper--Nevada--very recently. This was an article from earlier this month, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 7. The headline was ``Past state ObamaCare sign-up glitches now haunt Nevadans at tax time.'' Here is what the article says: How did a Reno collections agent end up in collections himself? The answer: He bought coverage in 2014 through the state's health insurance exchange. According to the article: Rick Furst is still ironing out wrinkles in a plan purchased in May through the Nevada Health Link and its contractor, Xerox. His cascade of issues has included bad coverage dates, unpaid medical bills and an incorrect tax- credit form. This man told the Las Vegas newspaper, ``My credit was excellent, and now my credit is shot.'' His credit was excellent, and now his credit is shot. Does Senator Reid think this man from his home State of Nevada made up his story out of whole cloth? People are having their lives turned upside down by the disgraceful failure of these ObamaCare exchanges. That is a fact. It is a cruel and costly side effect of this terrible health care law. Paul Krugman of the New York Times did not talk about that fact in his opinion column in the New York Times the other day. Another thing he and the minority leader are not talking about is the fact that many Americans now have less access to actual care because of the health care law. Well, they should have known about that fact; it was reported right there in the New York Times itself on Sunday, February 8, 2015, with the headline ``Insured, but not covered.'' ``New policies have . . . many Americans scrambling.'' The article talks about the narrow networks many insurance plans had to create. This was to try to meet the requirements of ObamaCare without the premiums going even higher. The story starts off by talking about one woman in New York City. Her name is Karen Pineman. First, she lost her existing health insurance policy because it did not meet all of the mandates President Obama said a health insurance policy had to include. The President calls those benefits ``essential benefits.'' I call them excessive benefits. It is much more insurance than many people need, want, or can afford. The article in the New York Times says that she accepted that she would have to pay a higher premium for a plan with a narrower network of providers and no out-of-network coverage. According to the article, she also accepted the fact that she would have to pay out of her own pocket to see her primary care physician because her doctor was not part of the narrow network that was now covered under her insurance. Well, she even accepted having copays of nearly $1,800 to put a cast on her ankle after she broke it playing tennis. Finally, the article says, her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a followup visit with her orthopedic surgeon. The nearest doctor available in her network who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, CT. Remember, she lives in New York City. This woman finally had enough. She told the newspaper: It is ridiculous. Didn't they notice that I was in another State? Well, that woman, as reported in the New York Times, did not make up her story out of whole cloth. Those kinds of narrow networks are a fact under President Obama's law. It is a fact that there are people who now have coverage and can't have access to care. There is a difference between coverage and care. You do not have to take my world for it; it is right there in the New York Times. So the minority leader is correct. Republicans have been relentless in condemning the horrifying costs of the President's health care law. Republicans have been relentless in condemning the intolerable damage the health care law has done to people's access to health care. Republicans will continue to be relentless because this health care law has been bad for patients, it has been bad for providers, and it has been terrible for American taxpayers. Republicans will continue to come to the floor to offer the facts about how the health care law has harmed American families. We will continue to offer solutions that deliver the real reform people have been asking for all along--the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.