John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``King vs. Burwell Supreme Court Case and Congressional Action that can be taken to Protect Small Businesses and their Employees.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``GAO's High Risk List and the Veterans Health Administration.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Exploring Opportunities for Private Investment in Public Infrastructure.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Five Years After Deepwater Horizon: Improvements and Challenges in Prevention and Response.''

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the hard work done by Senator Corker and Senator Cardin and their efforts on getting this bill to the floor in a bipartisan way through the committee and bringing it up for a vote. The amendment I am bringing today is something that was in the bipartisan agreed-upon bill that was introduced in the first place, with nine Democratic cosponsors. Then, this specific component, dealing with terrorism and the certification of terrorism, was removed in the managers' package as it went to committee. So I think it is important and there is bipartisan support for what I am doing. This amendment basically restores--restores--the terrorism certification that was in the original bipartisan Senate bill. Every 90 days, the President will be required under this amendment to certify to Congress that Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or against an American citizen anywhere in the world. If there is evidence of terrorist activity by Iran against us, then Congress will have a more streamlined process to address it. Right now there a number of different reports that have to be made to Congress as a result of this bipartisan legislation. This was the only one that was removed in the managers' package. I think it is very important the American people get regular certifications from the President on this important point. Congress and the American people need to know if Iran is directly supporting acts of terrorism against our country and our people. If they are, I believe Congress must have an opportunity to respond quickly. There actually have been some changes in the legislation to require some additional reporting components with relation to terrorism. I agree it is an improvement, but reports to Congress with information and evidence of Iran's terrorist activities are critically important, and I think it is even more critical for the President of the United States to acknowledge Iran's actions and for Congress to be able to have the opportunity to respond quickly. That is why I believe this amendment is so important. Congress can always do more to ensure the safety and security of our citizens, but we must make it clear to Iran that Congress will be able to respond immediately to terrorist actions against us. I am restoring this opportunity with my amendment and recommending an ``aye'' vote. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I think this is a very important debate, very consequential. A nuclear Iran is a global threat to everyone everywhere. The world deserves our best effort at stopping Iran's illicit nuclear program. This does not mean we need to yield to Iran on important points just to win vague promises that they will give up their dreams of a nuclear weapon. I realize that. President Obama says he understands it would be better to have no deal than to have a bad deal. I agree with the President. This legislation is about making sure that any agreement the administration reaches with Iran is truly a good deal. President Obama made it clear that he did not want this bill. He fought tooth and nail to make sure this legislation would not succeed, even threatened to veto it. The President wanted members of his administration to do all of the negotiating in private. He wanted to decide for himself what is best. Well, that is not how things this important to our Nation are supposed to work. When the stakes are high, the American people deserve a say. The Vice President knows that. Back in 2008, Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I served under him. He said, ``I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.'' Well, that informed consent includes allowing Congress to review important foreign policy decisions like any agreement over Iran's nuclear program. Now, I have my concerns about the parts of this deal that have been made public so far. I am also concerned about some of the confusion there seems to be between the White House and the Iranians. There is a clear disagreement about the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran. Iran has said a final deal must remove all of the economic sanctions on day No. 1. The administration has said sanctions will be lifted in phases and only if Iran complies with different steps along the way. So if a final deal is ever reached, it is going to be very important that we, the American people, have a very clear airing of all of the terms and an understanding of really what is in the deal. We need to make sure everyone agrees on what the deal actually says. I believe Iran is simply not trustworthy and we cannot afford to take chances with something this important. Any agreement must be enforceable, any agreement must be verifiable, and any agreement must be accountable. The President has now accepted that he needs to come to Congress and to get the support of the American people before he goes to the United Nations. Under the bill, the President must certify a few things every 90 days: He has to certify that Iran is fully implementing the agreement. He has to certify that Iran has not committed a material breach. He needs to certify that Iran has not engaged in any covert action to advance its own nuclear weapons program. The President has to confirm to Congress that Iran is playing by the rules. Now, if the President cannot do that, the bill creates an expedited process for Congress to take action. The way this bill was originally written, by Republicans and Democrats together, the bill also said something that many Americans believe is vitally important: It said the President must certify that Iran was not directly supporting or carrying out an act of terrorism against the United States or against an American citizen anywhere in the world. To me, this was a very important part of the original bipartisan bill, a bill which had bipartisan support and bipartisan sponsorship. During the negotiations in the committee, this consequential part of the original bill was removed. Congressional sanctions, I think, have been devastating to Iran's economy. It is what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Once the sanctions are lifted, Iran will have a lot of money that it did not have before. Now, I do not believe Iran is going to use that money to build schools or hospitals or roads or to improve the lives of the people in their country. Iran is going to have access to tens of billions if not over $100 billion that it can use to finance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Will there be any meaningful part of the final deal that guarantees that they will not use that money to support terrorists? Congress and the American people need to know if Iran is directly supporting acts of terrorism against our country and our people. The Iranian nuclear issue is absolutely intertwined, in my opinion, with terrorism. The two cannot be separated. So during the process of negotiating this bill, this was the only certification requirement that was left out. All the other parts stayed in. The critical part about making sure Iran was not supporting terrorism against our country came out. The President didn't want it there. Why wouldn't the President want to tell the American people about the terrorist threats facing our country and our citizens? If Iran is supporting terrorist attacks on Americans, then why would we trust them to keep their word on the nuclear program? So I have proposed an amendment that would restore the terrorism certification that was in the original bipartisan bill. That is all. I think it is very important that the American people hear from the President on this important point. Now, I understand some Senators do not like the idea of the President having to certify something like this. Some people have said that this requirement would compromise the ability of the United States to continue its negotiations. I disagree. My amendment simply says that if Iran is supporting acts of terrorism against our Nation and our people, then Congress will have a more streamlined process to address it. It is all very simple. That same process applies to all of the other things that the President has to certify. Would those other things compromise our ability to negotiate? This amendment would not get rid of the rest of our agreement on Iran's nuclear program, it would just allow a clear picture of whom we are dealing with. It would make it easier for Congress to act. It does not make it automatic. Congress still has to decide what to do. This just makes it easier. That is what my amendment does. It is not the only thing I would like to change in the bill. I hope we can have other amendments as well. It is important for Congress and the American people to have their say on any final deal. It is just as important that the oversight we provide be meaningful and that Congress state clearly that we will not tolerate Iran's support of terrorism. If our negotiators reach a final agreement with Iran, I will be giving it very close scrutiny in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor of the Senate. This is a consequential piece of legislation. It is an important bill, and there are ways we can make it even stronger. My amendment is a start. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last Thursday marked the 100th day of the new Republican-led Senate. While it is still very early, and there is still much to be done, we can report there has been bipartisan progress in a number of important areas. So I am optimistic. I am optimistic that the momentum we have seen over the last several months is going to translate into further successes on behalf of Americans. It is interesting to read from last Thursday's USA TODAY: The first 100 days of Republican Congress. The headline is: ``Lawmakers try to prove it's possible to be productive.'' So people are noticing the fact that we are keeping our campaign promises. During the last campaign season we told people all across the country that if they just gave us the opportunity to govern, we would do it in a bipartisan way. In November, the American people did send an unmistakable message to Washington. Voters across the country said they were tired of gridlock and tired of a lack of action. They said it was time for a new majority--a Republican majority--a majority to get the Senate working again and to get America on a better course. Republicans have responded, and we are working hard to make the Senate accountable again to the people who sent us here. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just the other day, the Bipartisan Policy Center came out with its healthy Congress index. This is a group of former Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. They talked about how the new Senate has been showing signs of life. The total number of days worked, they report, is up from that of previous years--43 days in the first 100 calendar days of this Senate versus 33 days at the same point last Congress, and 33 days in the Congress before that. Also, the number of bills reported out of committee is way up. In the first 100 days we had 15 bills reported out of committees in the Senate compared to just 8 in the first 100 days of the previous two Congresses. Imagine that, our committees are working, and we are pushing out bipartisan bills, such as the Iran congressional review bill that passed unanimously in the Foreign Relations Committee. The number of amendments voted on is larger than it has been in previous Congresses. In the first 100 days of this Congress, we voted on more than 100 amendments. These are amendments by both Republicans and Democrats. For all of last year there were only 15 up-and-down votes on amendments--just 15 for the entire year. This year we topped that number of amendment votes by January 22. That is just one more way the Senate is working again. In the first 100 days we passed a dozen bipartisan bills. We passed the bipartisan Keystone XL Pipeline jobs bill. We passed a bill to make much-needed reforms to the Medicare program and to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. We passed the Clay Hunt Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. We reached an agreement to help victims of modern slavery who are abused and exploited by human traffickers. These important bills are just part of our commitment to work together to solve problems for the American people. On top of all that, we passed a budget that actually balances over the next 10 years. Even former Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle recently said that ``there's been more open debate and consideration of issues'' under Senator McConnell's leadership. Well, that is exactly right. The Senate is working again, and we are just getting started. I am hopeful we can continue to work together to find solutions for more issues that matter to the American people. As chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can say that we have made real progress on bills to improve the lives of people across Indian Country. We have passed bills to improve irrigation projects, to help protect children in foster care, and to increase self-governance by Indian tribes. It has been a positive agenda, and I am grateful for the hard work and dedication of all the committee members. Along with a group of six Democrats and six Republicans who are working as cosponsors, I introduced a bill to speed up exports of American liquefied natural gas. We have bipartisan agreement on the need to streamline the permitting process for the sale of this clean American energy. This week we also made great progress on a bipartisan bill on the waters of the United States. I am optimistic we can reach an agreement with Senators on the other side of the aisle to get that issue behind us. The American people want an honest debate on important issues such as these. The American people want their representatives in the Senate to be able to offer amendments. The American people want to see their Senators take a stand and cast a vote up or down. That is how the Senate should work. That is how the Senate has been working for the first 100 days under Republican leadership. I am pleased with how productive the Senate has been over the first 100 days. Of course we want to do more, and we will have the chance shortly. I look forward to more votes, more debate, and more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle. This is the commitment Republicans made to the American people, and we are keeping that commitment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. 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 the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, tomorrow is April 15. April 15 is a date that causes a great deal of stress and anxiety for hard-working American taxpayers. For millions of American families, this year is going to be worse than ever before. The Obama health care law, ObamaCare, is making tax day harder for Americans. American taxpayers who were forced into the ObamaCare system--well, they are having to fill out even more forms this year than in the past, so many forms that the Internal Revenue Service can then enforce all of the President's health care mandates. It is a complicated and burdensome process. President Obama promised that buying health insurance through ObamaCare was going to be as easy as buying a television on Amazon. Well, why didn't the President ever say it was going to be so difficult to satisfy the IRS? Why didn't the President say that hard-working American taxpayers would have to fill out pages and pages of forms just to find out if they had actually paid the right amount for their health insurance? Why didn't the President say that people who changed jobs during the year might have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to the IRS? That doesn't happen when you buy a television on Amazon. Amazon tells you the price, and that is what you pay. Amazon doesn't make you fill out the forms on April 15; Amazon doesn't demand more money from you after the amount you paid. But that is what is happening to millions of Americans across the country. Taxes were already too complicated. Now, because of ObamaCare, it is much worse. For this year's tax filing season, the IRS released seven new forms that people might have to fill out to comply with the new health care law. The instructions alone for these forms are 46 pages long. A married couple with 2 children might have to enter numbers and other information into 133 individual boxes on just 1 of the new ObamaCare tax forms. A family could spend more time filling out one of these forms than they used to spend filling out their entire tax returns in the past. So for people who go through all of this effort, the results actually still can be terrifying. CNN ran a report earlier this year about the problem. The headline was: ``I have to pay back my ObamaCare subsidy.'' They told the story of Janice Riddle from Los Angeles. She got an ObamaCare subsidy last year. Then when she got a new job, she forgot to tell the IRS about the new job. They sort of knew because she was getting paid from the new job and she was paying taxes, but she didn't actually alert the IRS about it from the standpoint of ObamaCare. So when she was doing taxes this year, she learned she has to pay back the entire amount of the subsidy, more than $5,000. She told CNN: I'm in shock . . . but I have no choice. Do I want to argue with the IRS or the Obama administration? Well, Janice is not alone. The Obama administration says as many as 7.5 million families in America will have to reconcile their ObamaCare subsidies on their taxes for 2014 when they have the filing deadline tomorrow. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, last month only 4 percent of all the families who qualified for a subsidy got the right amount. So the Kaiser Family Foundation did a study last month, and what they have come out with is only 4 percent of all the families across the country who qualified for a subsidy got the right amount. The study found that half of all U.S. households that were eligible for a subsidy would have to pay back some of it with their taxes this year. The average amount they are going to have to pay back is $794. One of those people who just found out he owes the government so much money is Rob Tuck from Dublin, CA. According to an article last week by the Associated Press, he said he had expected to actually get a refund for his taxes--a refund of $400 for his taxes from his work last year. It turns out his refund has been almost wiped out--wiped out--to repay some of the subsidy he got to buy an expensive ObamaCare policy. He changed jobs during the year. He got a little extra income. In America, that should be a good thing, you get extra income. Well, not for him. It came with a large pricetag from the government. He said he enrolled in the plan to avoid the tax penalties of being uninsured, and he says that now he feels penalized by the Obama administration anyway. Another person who is feeling penalized by the President's health care law is Bill Preus of St. Petersburg, FL. He was quoted in the same Associated Press article last week. This man was only on ObamaCare for 3 months. After that time, he went onto Medicare. Well, there was poor coordination between the ObamaCare Web site, healthcare.gov, and his insurance company. Because of that, he may have to pay the IRS close to $4,000. Now, the man used to own an insurance agency, and, according to the article, he said he is used to complexity, but he said he never has seen anything like this. He told the Associated Press: ``It's a total mess.'' His tax preparer and the IRS both told him--his tax preparer and the IRS--that the best thing to do was to file an incomplete return so it would trigger an audit and then they could sort things out. Is that the President's idea of his health care plan being as easy to use as buying a TV on Amazon? This man has to go through an IRS audit. That is what they are hoping for, to get audited by the IRS. Apparently, that is the easiest way for Washington to figure out its own rules. It is outrageous. When the President, in the past, has been asked about the health care law, he said it is actually working better than he expected. What did he expect when people are telling stories such as these? The President's health care law is more than 2,000 pages long. It paid for thousands of IRS agents--people to investigate American taxpayers to make sure they comply with all the law's destructive and expensive mandates. But all of that complexity has become a disaster. This law has been bad for patients, it has been bad for providers, and as we reach the IRS filing deadline tomorrow, it is clear this law is terrible for taxpayers. This isn't what Democrats promised, and it is not what the American people wanted. People didn't want more redtape, more stress. They just wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. That is what Republicans in the Senate are working to give them. We can do it without more IRS audits. We can do it without a 2,000-page law. We can do it without making tax day harder for Americans. We can do it without all the negative side effects of ObamaCare. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this amendment that was just called up and made pending deals with the regulations the Obama administration has proposed that would expand the Clean Water Act. The rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers first proposed the rule last year. They expect to have it finalized in the next few months. Well, under this rule, the definition of ``waters of the United States'' would include ditches, would include dry areas where water flows only for a short period of time after it rains. Federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other manmade features as ``waters of the United States.'' This would be an alarming step. It would have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, families, and small businesses all across America. People whose livelihood requires that they put a shovel in the ground would suddenly find it much more difficult to make a living. The rule would amount to a tax on family farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. These are people who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, take care of their families, maybe even just enjoy their own backyards. I hear this every weekend at home in Wyoming. I heard about it today from students from Lusk, WY, in Niobrara County. Now, Washington bureaucrats would have a say in how all of these people use their property. I oppose this rule. I would like to see it scrapped entirely. That is why last year I introduced the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act of 2014 to block the rule, to roll back this dangerous Washington overreach. My bill had 38 cosponsors in the Senate, Members who heard from their constituents back home about how worried they were about this harmful new rule. We heard from business owners, who told us the uncertainty the rule creates only delays economic investment and delays job creation. Well, the Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns are overblown. The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding about what this regulation covers. Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, gave a speech last week. She said, ``We're not interested in the vast majority of ditches--roadside ditches, irrigation ditches-- those were never covered.'' She also went on to say that the Agency could have been, as she said, ``more crystal clear out of the gate about what we were and were not proposing.'' Well, my amendment would help make sure this rule is crystal clear. It simply lists things that the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and others in the Obama administration have already said would not be regulated under this proposed rule. That is it. My amendment would put limits on how the Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers determines the extent of Washington control. The limits would include not allowing the agencies to control water based on the movement of birds, mammals, or insects. The amendment would prevent determinations based upon the movement of water through the ground or the movement of rainwater or snowmelt over the land. Finally, my amendment would specifically say that Federal jurisdiction under the Water Pollution Control Act does not extend to things such as puddles, isolated ponds, roadside ditches, and wastewater systems. The Obama administration has said it does not intend for its rules to cover any of these features. Well, this amendment spells it out. There will be no more room for uncertainty and no more room for misunderstandings. It will then be crystal clear. Of course, some people may not want the rule to be crystal clear. They may want to have some uncertainty in the rule. They may want to have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Washington to be able to change their minds and then go back on their word--as we have seen them do in the past--about what the regulation covers and what it does not. If there is a Senator here who favors that kind of uncertainty, then they can vote against my amendment. As I said, I have been opposed to this rule from the very beginning. This amendment does not block the rule, and it does nothing to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers from regulating the true waters of the United States. It simply takes the administration at their word. If they say the rule is not meant to cover something, this just spells it out. I urge Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 347 and that the amendment be made pending.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 347, an amendment to hold the EPA and the Army Corps to their word about the scope of their proposed waters of the United States rule. The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding with their proposed waters of the United States regulation and what it covers. Time and time again, we have heard from the EPA and the Corps that this rule would not cover things such as puddles, rainwater, snowmelt, and irrigation ditches. The Barrasso amendment would help to make sure this rule is crystal clear by listing out those things the EPA and the Corps have indicated or led folks to believe would not be covered under the rule. So if you believe the waters of the United States rule does not go far enough, that the Federal Government should be in the business of regulating puddles in our constituents' backyards, then vote against my amendment. That is what voting against my amendment would mean. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to protect the waters of the United States. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I support the Stabenow amendment. Ranchers and property owners in rural America think the EPA is out of control. I agree. It is right to rein in the EPA and restore current protections and exemptions for rural America. A key area where the Stabenow amendment falls short is excluding cities, suburbs, and the job-creating businesses and working families that reside outside of rural America. My amendment, which will be next, addresses concerns raised by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties, which want certainty regarding the EPA's power grab. The Senator from Michigan does things to protect farmers and ranchers from the EPA. My amendment is supported by the American Farm Bureau. This support is because my amendment is specific and holds the EPA and the Corps to the promises they have already made. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, 5 years ago today, President Obama signed his health care bill into law. Since then Americans have watched their paychecks shrink because of the law. Hard-working American taxpayers have paid billions of dollars in higher taxes because of the law. They have had less health care choice because of the law. So what does the President say about all of this? What does the President say to the millions of Americans who have had to suffer-- suffer--through a long list of costly and appalling side effects of the President's health care law? Well, last week he gave a speech in Cleveland and he said, ``It's working even better than I expected.'' He repeated the same thing this weekend, saying, ``It's working even better than I expected.'' Has the President not seen what has happened to workers' paychecks over the last 5 years? Maybe the President missed an article by the Associated Press last Wednesday. The headline was: ``Health care law paperwork costs small businesses thousands.'' The article said, ``Complying with the health care law is costing small businesses thousands of dollars that they didn't have to spend before the new regulations went into effect.'' The article gives the example of Mike Patton, who has a flooring company in the San Francisco Bay area. All of the extra ObamaCare paperwork is costing him about $25,000 a year. To pay for it, the article said, Mike had to ``cut back on workers' bonuses and raises.'' He told the Associated Press, ``They understand it didn't emanate from us . . . They're just disappointed that $25,000 could have gone into a bonus pool.'' Mike Patton's employees will get less money in their paychecks because of all the complex and costly redtape of ObamaCare. Is that even better than the President expected? People are getting smaller paychecks and they are also paying higher taxes because of this health care law. According to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will increase Washington's spending on health care by $1.7 trillion over the next decade. About half of that is for subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges and about half is to pay for all of the people who have been dumped onto a broken Medicaid system. The $1.7 trillion has to come from somewhere, and a lot of it is coming from hard-working American taxpayers. ObamaCare included more than 20 tax increases on things such as medical devices, prescription drugs, and even on the very insurance policies that Washington Democrats said everyone has to buy. Why so many taxes? Why is ObamaCare so expensive? Well, an outrageous amount of the money has been wasted over the last 5 years. Just the other day there was another example that came out of Massachusetts. There was a Boston Herald article last Wednesday, March 18. The headline was: ``Health Connector officials spent $170G on perks.'' The article talks about Federal taxpayer money--Federal taxpayer money--that was given to Massachusetts to set up the State's ObamaCare exchange. The article says: Massachusetts Health Connector officials behind the state's failed health care website-- Now, remember, the health care Web site in Massachusetts completely failed. Massachusetts Health Connector officials behind the state's failed health care website have racked up more than $170,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses, including a Boston Harbor summertime boat cruise, luxury hotel stays, ``appreciation'' meals for staffers and contractors--and a $285 Obamacare cake commemorating the launch of the Affordable Care Act. . . . According to the article, ``the Connector's staff and board members scored numerous perks even as they spent hundreds of millions [of dollars] to fix the state portal during its botched Obamacare rollout.'' What does the State have to say about this--about the kind of waste and misuse of taxpayer money? Well, the article actually quotes a spokesman for the exchange saying ``we were happy to do it.'' Does President Obama think that kind of waste is even better than he expected? It seems as though the American people see headlines like this every day and every day they see more ways the President's health care law has failed us over the last 5 years. Let me cite one more example, and this one concerns one of the ways ObamaCare has meant less choice for Americans when it comes to their own health care. President Obama promised you could keep your doctor. Millions of Americans over the past 5 years have lost access to their doctor because insurance plans have had to limit the network of doctors those patients can see. That can generate and create real problems for people trying to use their coverage to actually get medical care. This is about a woman by the name of Pam Durocher from Roseville, CA. An article by Kaiser Health News on February 18 told her story. The headline was: ``Even Insured Consumers Get Hit With Unexpectedly Large Medical Bills.'' And she is insured. The article continued: ``After Pam Durocher was diagnosed with breast cancer, she searched her insurer's website for a participating surgeon to do the reconstructive surgery.'' The article said she did her homework, so ``she was stunned to get a $10,000 bill from the surgeon. `I panicked when I got the bill' ''--no surprise that she panicked when she got the bill--``said the 60-year- old retired civil servant. . . . '' It turns out the surgeon had two offices and only one of those was in the very narrow network of the insurance plan. The office Pam went to wasn't in the network so she got a bill for $10,000. According to this article: ``Consumer advocates say that the sheer scope of such problems undermine promises''--undermine promises--``made by proponents of the Affordable Care Act that the law would protect against medical bankruptcy.'' It says that, ``Advocates believe a growing number of consumers are vulnerable.'' Let me repeat that: Advocates of the health care law, people who voted for it, believe a growing number--now with the fifth anniversary of the health care law--are vulnerable. And President Obama said that was exactly the type of situation his law was supposed to prevent. Instead, it is exactly the kind of situation his devastating health care law has created. The Obama administration is bragging--bragging--about the number of people covered by ObamaCare. Is this what those people have to look forward to? Does President Obama really think that making people such as Pam panic means his law is working even better than he expected? It may be better than he expected, but it is a lot worse than what the American people expected. It is also a lot worse than what they were promised. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, I know Americans have always wanted affordable care instead of expensive Washington- mandated coverage. The American people expected health care reform to give them the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. Five years ago too many Americans were paying higher premiums. Here we are 5 years later and Americans are paying even higher premiums and finding it harder to see their doctor. This isn't what President Obama promised and it is not what the American people deserve. In the coming months the Supreme Court will rule on whether the President violated his own law with an unauthorized spending and taxing scheme. This will be a major blow to a law that has failed Americans for more than 5 years and will be an opportunity to finally focus on affordable health care. Republicans are committed to helping the millions of Americans who have been hurt by this law. We are working on a plan that will deliver freedom, flexibility, and choice to Americans. Five years later, the law has been bad for patients, it has been bad for providers, and it has been terrible for the American taxpayers. This anniversary today is not a cause for celebration. It is a call for action. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following articles from the Boston Herald, the Associated Press, and Kaiser Health News.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, next Tuesday, March 24, we will reach the deadline for the deal with Iran for its illicit nuclear program. That is the date by which the Obama administration said it would have a framework for a final agreement with Iran. So far, it seems as though the administration is willing to make a deal at any cost. America cannot afford that and Congress should not allow it. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe we should not accept a bad deal with the Iranians. In one poll earlier this month, 84 percent of Americans said it is a bad idea to accept the kinds of concessions this administration seems to be making. The Obama administration started negotiating with Iran more than 5 years ago. It has mishandled these talks from the very beginning by conceding Iran's right to enrich uranium. This deal was supposed to be about stopping Iran's nuclear program as a pathway to a bomb. Negotiators started off by insisting that Iran should have no more than 1,500 centrifuges to produce nuclear materials. That number has steadily grown during the negotiations. According to David Ignatius in the Washington Post on February 24, the number is now four times the level where we started. His article is entitled ``A compelling argument on Iran.'' It says, ``The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran about 6,000'' centrifuges. So we have gone from 1,500 to 4,000 to now 6,000. The author of the article says one administration official told him that even 9,000 centrifuges would be okay. Remember, Iran is not supposed to have a uranium enrichment program. The United Nations Security Council has demanded the program be suspended. So why is the Obama administration negotiating on this point at all? When did this change from being an attempt to stop Iran's nuclear program to become an attempt to delay or to manage Iran's nuclear program? If this deal makes too many of these kinds of concessions to the Iranians, it would be just one more example of the failed foreign relations of this Obama Presidency. Go back and look at what happened with the Russian reset. It was the reset button Secretary of State Clinton launched in March of 2009--6 years ago this month. Look at her comments in which she said that Syrian President Assad was ``a reformer.'' President Obama talked about a redline with Syria--a redline that Syria could not cross by using chemical weapons against his own people. Assad crossed that line more than 2 years ago. Remember when the President called ISIS a JV team? This is all part of a pattern of the Obama administration underestimating our enemies and being outmaneuvered by them. This administration has a terrible record of being wrong about Iran as well. When Congress was debating increased sanctions against Iran, the White House opposed those sanctions. Congress had to force sanctions authority on the President. It was those sanctions--the ones Congress imposed upon the President--that brought Iran to the negotiating table. Now the administration says it opposes congressional participation once again. Well, I don't believe the White House gets to be the sole decider on this important issue. The administration claims it understands it would be better to have no deal at all than to have a bad deal, and I agree. That is why we need oversight--oversight by Congress--to make sure this is not a bad deal. The negotiators don't get to decide for themselves if it is a good deal or a bad deal. The American people get a say, and Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, is the right place for the people to have their voices heard. So what does the Obama administration have to say about all this? The President's Chief of Staff sent a letter over the weekend, Saturday night--the Saturday night surprise--and he said Congress will get to be involved only after the administration signs a deal. Congress gets to be involved only after people get to find out what is in it, after President Obama signs a deal. It is kind of like Nancy Pelosi when she said of the health care law, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. So why is it the Chief of Staff of the President is acting this way? Why is the Obama administration telling Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to sit down and be quiet? Let's be clear about what is at stake here. If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue with its illicit nuclear program, the world will be less safe, less stable, and less secure. Any agreement must be accountable, must be enforceable, and must be verifiable. If that is not the case, then it is a bad deal. We need to make sure this deal is about protecting Americans, not protecting the President's diplomatic legacy. If the Obama administration is so confident it can negotiate a good deal, why not let Congress participate? We have bipartisan legislation here that Senator Corker has written with Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors. That bipartisan legislation would make sure that congressional sanctions currently in place stay in place, and they stay in place long enough for Congress to hold hearings and to take whatever action is needed. That bill being proposed will be before the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. That bill will guarantee the President keeps an eye on Iran's compliance with any agreement. If the Iranians try to break the deal, we would know about it so that Congress would reimpose sanctions, reinstate sanctions. The American people need to be involved in this process. Getting onboard and getting the approval of Congress only strengthens the agreement the administration negotiates. It will validate, give more legitimacy to it, and more credibility. Congress should and must be involved. It will make clear to both our allies and our enemies that America stands united in our commitment to ending Iran's nuclear program. It also makes it far more likely this agreement will outlast the Obama administration. When President Obama and Vice President Biden were Senators, they favored this kind of involvement by Congress. They both actually cosponsored legislation requiring Congress to approve any long-term security commitment President Bush was to make with Iraq. Well, a long agreement with Iran over its nuclear program to me is even more important. In one policy after another, President Obama has disregarded the views of the American people. This is a huge concern. He has ignored Congress. He acted on his own even when he had no authority to act. He has done it on the domestic side, he has done it on the foreign relations side, and it looks to me as if the administration is planning once again to ignore Congress and the American people in pursuit of an inadequate deal with Iran. It is time for Congress to step in and to stand up for the American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post story of February 24 by David Ignatius entitled ``A compelling argument on Iran.''

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