John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 126, as Modified

Mr. BARRASSO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 18, as Modified

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 99

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2015. In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands. According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly. Nearly 10 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight. This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts. That law was a step in the right direction. However, these agreements have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be. It is past time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements. The bill that I am introducing today would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes. I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements. In addition, the bill sets forth specific time frames for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval. The bill has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. It also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued. Additionally, this bill would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development. My bill does not focus on only traditional resource development, but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially long-term supplies of woody biomass materials. This bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Tester, McCain, Hoeven, Enzi, and Fischer for joining me in cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing this bill expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last night the President delivered the State of the Union Address. So it was interesting to hear the acting minority leader talking about homeland security, budgeting for homeland security. I know the Presiding Officer, through his service to our Nation overseas, wearing a uniform, keeping us safe, keeping us free-- the Presiding Officer has concerns, as do I, about what we heard last night. It was interesting to hear some of the commentary after the President's speech as we talk about securing the homeland and what it means for the American public. Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, ``I think that on foreign policy his''--meaning President Obama's--``projection of success against terrorism and against ISIS, in particular, is not close to reality.'' The President of the United States, ``not close to reality.'' I have just come back from a trip to the Middle East, been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel. I concur with Andrea Mitchell; that on the specifics of the President's assessment of success against terrorism and against ISIS, this President ``is not close to reality.'' So Republicans are going to continue to bring forth the issues to the American people of what reality is like in the world, in spite of the way the President may address it, because of the specific failures of this President and his foreign policy. It is interesting. Last night in the State of the Union Address, the President started by saying that ``the state of the Union is strong.'' The state of our Union is strong. But President Obama mistakenly took credit for that strength. He implied it was because of his policies, because of his actions. On that point this President could not have gotten it more wrong. The state of our Union is strong because of the strength of the American people. Americans are resilient. Americans are hardworking. In the November elections, the American people showed they can act decisively. It is interesting, this morning's headline, New York Times: ``Staunchly Liberal Wish List Brushes Off G.O.P.'s Gains.'' Headline, New York Times, bright, bold, above the fold. ``Staunchly Liberal Wish List Brushes off G.O.P.'s Gains.'' So we are a resilient nation. People know what they believe. They know how they feel. They voted those beliefs. When the American people chose Republicans to lead both Houses of Congress, they said clearly they wanted change, a change from Barack Obama, a change from the direction he has been taking this country. People want Democrats to start working with Republicans to get things done. The American people said in the November elections they are tired of the gridlock, they are tired of the dysfunction, tired of Democrats running the Senate to protect their own jobs and not caring about the jobs of middle-class Americans. President Obama had a great opportunity last night, an opportunity to show that he understands what Americans have been telling him. Instead he went out and he gave the same speech he always gives. It was a partisan attack on Republicans and the Americans who voted to put the Republicans in charge in the House and in the Senate. It is interesting listening to the commentary after the speech. Wolf Blitzer, CNN, said, ``I don't remember a State of the Union address where I heard a President issue so many veto threats to the opposite party in the Congress.'' So we have Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, saying that in terms of foreign policy the President's views ``are not close to reality.'' CNN, Wolf Blitzer, ``I do not remember a State of the Union address where I heard a President issue so many veto threats to the opposite party in the United States Congress,'' especially when it is at a time, as the New York Times point out, of GOP gains in the elections, the President specifically ignoring what has happened across this country in the November elections. President Obama seems to have missed the November elections entirely. Republicans know we have an obligation to the American people to deliver effective, efficient, and accountable government. We have an opportunity and an obligation to put Americans first. Last night President Obama showed he still wants to put Washington first. Republicans are not willing to help this President continue down the same wrong road that the American people have rejected. Let's be honest. This past election was a rejection election, rejecting the policies of this President, this administration. We are charting a new course and a better direction. We are already making progress. The Senate is working like it has not worked in years. We are debating actual legislation, laying on the floor the Keystone Pipeline jobs bill. We are allowing Senators to offer amendments. We actually had votes on three amendments yesterday. We are going to pass this bill. We are going to send it to the President's desk. Then we are going to turn to more jobs bills and the important issues the American people care about. We are going to work on reforming our health care system. In his speech last night President Obama offered no solutions on the major issues facing this country. Instead, he offered the same old tired policies of higher taxes, more Washington spending, more bureaucracy, more obstruction of bipartisan solutions coming out of the new Congress. The President said Congress should focus on areas where we agree. That is exactly what Republicans have been doing. We are moving bipartisan bills, bills that overwhelming majorities of Americans support. The President continues to threaten to veto them, things such as the Keystone XL Pipeline bill that supports 42,000 American jobs. That is not my number. That is what the State Department--the President's own State Department--said, it would support 42,000 American jobs. In a poll last week, 65 percent of Americans said the President should sign that into law. We will pass bills to allow for more exports of American energy and to give the President trade promotion authority that he has asked for and that America needs. We will pass commonsense reforms to America's health care system, to end many of the outrageous and expensive mandates for coverage that people do not want, do not need, cannot afford. We will pass bipartisan education reform to give all of America's 50 million students a better chance to succeed. We will push for tax simplification, to make taxes less fair, less complicated. That is what Americans need to compete in the 21st century. We do not need higher taxes, more debt to pay for spending and more IRS agents, things the American people do not believe we need. Republicans are going to send the President bills that will help expand our economy by growing the private sector, not by growing the Washington bureaucracy. We are going to pass bills that increase how much families earn and how much of that they actually get to keep, not just how much Washington gets to take and the President gets to spend. So the state of our Union is strong. It is also in greater agreement than it has been in years about the direction this country should take. President Obama could have taken the opportunity last night to actually talk about this. He could have offered a positive plan to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress instead of the defiant tone he placed upon the country. He made threats to veto bipartisan legislation. He chose to double down on more obstruction, more unaccountable Washington bureaucracy, more wasted tax dollars. The American people have rejected this course. The American people want a better path, not the same old tired speech from a President now in the final quarter of his time as President. The speech is over. Now the President needs to decide what he is actually going to do. Is he ready to get on board with bipartisan ideas or does he want to spend the next 2 years as a lameduck. There are Democrats in this body who agree it is actually time for the Senate to get back to work. They are ready to listen to ideas, good ideas, work with Republicans to help America, to help the American people thrive. This President should work with all of us. That is what Americans want. They want us to work together. They want us to change the direction our country has been headed for the first 6 years of President Obama's time in office. This Republican Congress is listening to the American people. The President continues to ignore them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. First let me thank and congratulate the Senator from North Dakota for his dogged determination in fighting for these American jobs and for energy security for our country. I am so grateful for his hard work. He has really been tenacious in this fight to get this bill past the Senate and to the President's desk. I also congratulate my friend and colleague from Montana. Last fall the American people elected 12 new Republican Senators to work in this body, and he is one of them. I have had the opportunity to travel with him in Montana. He has a great background. He is innovative, and he is energetic. He is going to do a tremendous job not only for his State and the Rocky Mountain West but for the entire United States as a Member of the Senate. He just took his oath yesterday. We were able to hear from him today, and he is going to be a remarkable addition to this body. I know that all of these dozen new Republican Senators are as eager as the rest of us in the new Republican majority to start fulfilling our obligation to the people we represent. Americans elected a Republican Congress because they wanted a change. They wanted to change the direction that President Obama and Democrats have taken the country. Under the Democratic leadership over the past several years, the Senate was a place of dysfunction and gridlock. More than 40 jobs bills passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress never even came up for a vote in the Senate. Many of those bills had overwhelming bipartisan support, just like this one we are debating today. Those days are over. That is a completely unacceptable way to run the Senate. All of us here in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, have been given an opportunity to work together and to get things done. That is what the American people told us on election day, that is what they are expecting from us, and I believe that is what they are demanding of us. The poster child for the gridlock and dysfunction of Washington has been the Keystone XL Pipeline. For more than 6 years it has been a symbol of out-of-control Washington bureaucracy. The State Department has absolutely refused to do its job and to make any kind of decision on the pipeline's application. The Keystone XL Pipeline has also been a symbol of gridlock in the Senate. A small group of extreme environmentalists with deep pockets has bullied Democratic Members of the Senate to block a bill that would move this important jobs project further. According to the latest figures, America's labor force participation rate is woefully low; it is just 62.8 percent. Are Democrats in this body satisfied with that number? Is the President of the United States, President Barack Obama, satisfied with this pathetic participation in America's labor force? I can say that people in my State, Republicans all across the country--they are not satisfied. That is why we are determined to push job-creating legislation such as this Hoeven bill to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline. The President said there is no benefit to this important infrastructure project. During a press conference last month, President Obama actually claimed that the project is ``not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.'' Apparently, that is what the President believes. Well, he is wrong. Just ask the Obama administration's own State Department. It says the pipeline would support more than 42,000 jobs. Some of those are construction jobs. Some of them are in the transportation field and the manufacturing field. It includes jobs at warehouses, restaurants, and motels along the route. Does President Obama think that a good job is not even a ``nominal benefit'' to the Americans who could get those 42,000 jobs from this pipeline? According to the Congressional Research Service, there are already 19 pipelines operating across U.S. borders. Why is this the one that suddenly offers not even a nominal benefit, according to President Obama? Why does President Obama refuse to make a decision about whether to approve the pipeline? Well, the President has taken a position on this bipartisan bill--according to the White House Press Secretary on Tuesday, the President will not sign this bill once Congress passes it. The State Department has done one study after another showing that the pipeline would create jobs and that it would have no significant environmental impact. President Obama has been downplaying those benefits and threatening to veto the bill. That is not Presidential leadership. Now Republicans are going to show the leadership that the American people have been asking for and that they voted for last November. We are going to bring a bill to the floor and force the President to finally do something by putting it on the President's desk. Democrats have been playing politics with this pipeline bill. The Republican majority will now get it done. We are going to allow a vote on this project. We are going to allow Senators to offer amendments. What a unique situation in the Senate. We are going to let everyone say which side they are on. This will be a bellwether decision. Are Members of the Senate in favor of 42,000 jobs for American workers or are they in favor of more Washington delay? Democrats will have a chance to make their arguments. The extreme opponents of this project will make misleading claims to try to discount the pipeline's benefits, and they will try to stoke people's fears. We have seen it all before. At the end of the day, here is what this all comes down to--four things: No. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline will support more than 42,000 jobs in the United States. No. 2, it will be a private investment of $8 billion--not taxpayer spending, private spending. No. 3, it will have minimal effect on the environment. No. 4, the pipeline is actually safer than other methods of getting that oil to market. Congress should approve this pipeline and pass this bill and the President should sign it. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a job creator. It has bipartisan support. It has been stuck in Washington's bureaucratic gridlock. It is interesting. When I listen to and think of the President and his comments about jobs and what the impact is going to be, it makes me think of what the president of the Laborers' International Union of North America said in the summer 1 year ago. He was scheduled to testify today at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing--a hearing that now the minority, the Democratic acting leader, Senator Durbin, objected to having yesterday. He objected to just a hearing and a discussion. It is interesting. There was a press release from the president of the union, who was quoted on the subject of the economic benefits associated with the construction of the pipeline. Terry O'Sullivan said: The President [President Obama] seems to dismiss the corresponding economic opportunities that would benefit other laborers, manufacturers, small businesses, and communities throughout Keystone's supply chain. He said: The Washington politics behind the delay of the Keystone XL pipeline are of little concern to those seeking the dignity of a good, high-paying job. We renew our call to the President [President Obama] to approve this important, job- creating project without delay. This is what a job is. It is about someone's dignity, their identity, and their self-worth. People take a lot of personal pride in their work and in their job. I think we ought to approve it. I am ready to vote for it. The American people have been clear: They are tired of Washington's gridlock and delay, and they are tired of the direction President Obama has been taking this country. The American voters demanded change, they demanded action, and this Republican Congress is going to deliver just that. So I say to my friend and colleague from North Dakota--and I see that the chairman of the Senate energy committee has arrived--thank you both for your leadership. To the Senator from North Dakota, former Governor there, thank you for your leadership on energy in North Dakota. And to the senior Senator from Alaska, the chair of the energy committee, thank you specifically for your leadership. I look forward to working with both of you specifically on this project and on additional issues that will bring American energy security and jobs to our Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Dr. Carmona writes: His partisanship and lack of qualifications for the job of Surgeon General gives this nomination the scent of political patronage. That is from a Democrat who actually served as Surgeon General and knows what it takes to do the job well. Dr. Carmona added in his letter to all of the Members of the Senate: His confirmation would undermine the credibility and authenticity of the Office of Surgeon General, while demeaning the selfless service of qualified career uniformed officers who merit consideration. That is whom the President of the United States has chosen to nominate--someone who would undermine the credibility and authenticity of the Office of Surgeon General, while demeaning the selfless service of qualified career uniformed officers who merit consideration. Americans deserve a Surgeon General who has substantial experience in managing complex crises and delivering patient care. The American people deserve a Surgeon General who has proven throughout his or her career that their main focus is a commitment to patients, not a commitment to politics. Dr. Murthy has time to learn, time to gain experience, and that may make him a fine Surgeon General someday, but that day is not today. I call on the Senate to defeat the nomination of Dr. Murthy for Surgeon General of the United States. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. I rise today to oppose the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to be Surgeon General of the United States. The Surgeon General is known as America's doctor. Americans have great respect for this important position. They expect their Surgeon General to be someone who has substantial experience in helping patients, in helping improve their health, and in helping them reduce their risk of illness and injury. This important position has been vacant since July of 2013, about a year and a half. It is far too long, and it has been completely avoidable. We have seen how the Obama administration has struggled in response to important health issues such as the Ebola crisis. America should have had a Surgeon General in the job to lead in the fight against Ebola and to take on other serious health challenges as well. Dr. Murthy is a smart man who is very well educated. He has an undergraduate degree from Harvard, an MBA from Yale, and an M.D. from the Yale School of Medicine. These are impressive academic credentials, and I am sure he will be a fine doctor, but they are simply not sufficient qualifications for this important job. Is Dr. Murthy a renowned expert in treating patients or researching diseases? No, not at all. Has he actually built a career teaching medicine or leading major public health organizations? No, not yet. In fact, Dr. Murthy only completed his residency in 2006--just 8 years ago. I speak as someone who has actually practiced medicine for 25 years, has been an instructor of surgery at Yale Medical School, which Dr. Murthy attended, and I saw that being a doctor is about much more than going to school. Doctors learn more and more as they progress through their careers and spend more time with their patients, listening to patients and the patients' families. Dr. Murthy has not had the time to develop these kinds of skills. So what qualifies him to be Surgeon General of the United States? Well, in 2008, just 2 years out of his residency, he founded a group called Doctors for Obama; the purpose: to elect a President. The majority of his career has been spent not as a doctor treating patients but as an activist--an activist focused on gun control and political campaigns. Even former Surgeon General Richard Carmona has said Dr. Murthy doesn't have the medical experience to serve in such an important position. Let me point out that Dr. Carmona is a Democrat. He wrote an article for the Huffington Post on December 4. It was entitled ``In Search of a Surgeon General.'' I will read a little bit of what he wrote. He said: We don't appoint doctors early in their career to be a university Dean or Chairman. Graduate business students at the top of their class don't become instant CEOs. Top law graduates of elite law schools don't get nominated to be U.S. Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice. Why would the U.S. Surgeon General be any different? He concludes by asking: Is the health, safety, and security of the Nation any less important? Is the health, safety, and security of the Nation any less important? Well, no, the health, safety, and security of the Nation are not less important, and the job of Surgeon General is not less important. Americans want the same thing from a Surgeon General as they want from their own doctors. People want honest and straightforward advice about medical dangers, such as cancer, heart attacks, and stroke. They don't want an inexperienced, unqualified political appointee. Patients don't want a doctor who might let political ideology get in the way of treatment and their best interest. Americans don't want a Surgeon General who might use this position of trust to promote his own personal campaign against the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This is just another example of President Obama giving someone an important job based solely on their support of the President's political career--just like his nomination of a soap opera producer to be Ambassador to Hungary or the President's nomination of a man to be Ambassador to Norway when the person didn't know the first thing about the country. Of course, both those nominations to be Ambassadors had funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the President's campaigns. Well, those nominations were embarrassing, and so is this nomination to be Surgeon General. This office of Surgeon General is not just an honorary title. It is not just a figurehead position. The Surgeon General commands the entire Commissioned Corps of the uniformed public health officers. There are 6,700 people whom the Surgeon General commands. It is one of the key positions leading America's public health efforts. America has a long history of qualified and talented people filling this job. When President Bill Clinton nominated David Satcher in 1998, Dr. Satcher had already served as president of a medical school and as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. C. Everett Koop spent 35 years as a leading world-renowned pediatric surgeon. They were substantial candidates who brought serious experience to the job. The responsibilities of being America's Surgeon General require a strong, professional leader, and the American people deserve a qualified nominee. There is a long list of capable doctors who could meet those requirements. The President should pick one of them. Over the years, we have seen that when the President has nominated qualified people for this position, the Senate has approved their nominations on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes. When President Obama nominated Regina Benjamin to be Surgeon General, she was confirmed unanimously, as was Richard Carmona when President Bush nominated him. Today, even Democrats have objected to the nomination of Dr. Murthy. So why are we wasting the Senate's time talking about this now? Well, if President Obama thinks Dr. Murthy is qualified, why haven't we already voted on him? He was nominated more than a year ago--more than a year ago. We had the Ebola crisis and no Surgeon General. He was nominated more than a year ago. His confirmation hearing in the committee was last February. The majority leader could have brought this up for a vote at any time in the past 9 months, but he didn't do it. Why? Because he knew this nominee--this unqualified, partisan nominee--didn't have the votes. He could not get the votes on the Democratic side of the aisle. The nomination would have been an embarrassment before the election. Now is not the right time for this nomination, and this is not the right job for Dr. Murthy. The Ebola problem and the other health crises facing our Nation are enormous challenges that require skills and talents that this nominee has simply not had time to develop and which he has so far not demonstrated in his career. I wish to close by quoting from a letter former Surgeon General Carmona sent to all of the Members of the Senate earlier this month. He sent it to each and every one of us. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

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 for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, earlier today the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, said there was a way to fix ObamaCare. She said: Change the name. She said: Change the name. That was her solution. Now that is not something she just told a friend. It is something she told many, as she was participating in Politico's ``Lessons From Leaders'' events. Well, leaders don't blame the failure of a bad product on a name. You can blame it on a lot of things, but the name is not it. After all, the President said he was fond of the name ObamaCare. Apparently, Kathleen Sebelius is taking a page from the playbook of Professor Gruber about underestimating the intelligence of the American people. This law isn't unpopular because it was named after the President. The law is unpopular because it doesn't work. It is unpopular because it doesn't deliver what the President promised the American people it would. So Democrats can rename this health care system whatever they want and people all across the country are still going to know that the law is failing them. People have been hit by higher costs--higher copays, higher premiums, higher deductibles. Many of them can't continue to see the doctor who treated them in the past. So no matter what the Democrats and Kathleen Sebelius want to call it, the law remains very unpopular because it is unworkable and it is unaffordable. As we head into the middle of December, next week, December 15, is the deadline for people to sign up on Healthcare.gov if they want to have their health insurance coverage starting next January--January 1-- just a few weeks from now. That is for people living in the 37 States that use the Federal health care exchange. A lot of people still haven't signed up, and they may learn over the next few days if they do go to the Web site to sign up that their health care and their insurance premiums are actually more expensive next year than they were this year. That is what people continue to see: Health care rates going up in spite of the President's promise. When President Obama was selling his health care law to the American people, he promised them they would save money. He actually went so far as to say people would save $2,500 per year, per family, under his plan. And Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, actually went on ``Meet the Press'' and at one point said: Everyone's rates would go down. Everyone's rates, she said, would go down. Well, that didn't happen. Now the Obama administration finally admits that people are paying more, not less. Americans buying health insurance through the Federal exchange will see their premiums go up and the administration finally admits it. And that is according to a new report by the Department of Health and Human Services which came out last Thursday. Democrats said prices would go down, the President promised they would go down, and Nancy Pelosi said they would down for everyone. Instead, the prices keep going up. Here is what one person in Syracuse, NY, wrote to his local newspaper last week. Lawrence Petty wrote to the Syracuse Post-Standard last Monday, December 1. He wrote that he has a plan he bought through the State ObamaCare exchange. This year, the cost was about $664 a month for the couple. Next year, going on the exchange, the rate for the same plan--the same plan, because the President said if you like your plan you can keep it--the same plan is going up from $664 a month to $773 a month. That is over $1,300 extra per year. Mr. Petty asked the newspaper in Syracuse, NY: ``So what gives?'' The average increase across the country is less than that, but this man in Syracuse, NY, is looking at a price hike of more than 17 percent. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the President's health care law--every one of them. The Democratic Senator from New York voted for the health care law--the very State where this man is writing to his newspaper in Syracuse, NY. What do they have to say to this man in Syracuse whose insurance premiums are going up 17 percent next year? How do they respond to this man who is writing to the paper in New York asking ``what gives''? Maybe his question has something to do with what the senior Senator from New York said a couple of weeks ago at the National Press Club, when he admitted that the health care law, in his words, ``wasn't the change we were hired to make.'' It is not just premiums. They are not the only problem here. The health care law has added so many Washington mandates, so many things people didn't want, can't afford, aren't interested in, don't need, that other costs have gone up as well. That includes the money people have to pay out of pocket for things such as copays, their deductibles. Some people have actually had to delay their medical care because of all these additional expenses. According to a new Gallup poll last month, 33 percent of Americans say that over the past year they have put off getting medical treatment because of the cost. Gallup has been asking this same question all the way since 2001, well before the health care law was passed. And this year it is the highest number ever. This is after the President's health care law has been signed into law and has taken effect and the exchanges are in effect--the highest number ever of people not getting care because of the cost. Two-thirds of these people say they have put off treatment for a serious condition. One of them is a woman named Patricia Wanderlich. She is 61 years old, and she works part time at a landscaping company outside of Chicago, in the President's home State. She told the New York Times that she has a small brain aneurysm that needs monitoring. She tells her story in an article the New York Times published on October 17 under the headline ``Unable to Meet the Deductible Or the Doctor.'' Patricia has a health insurance plan through ObamaCare that has an annual deductible of $6,000, so she has to pay for most of her medical expenses up to that amount. Because of that, she says she is skipping this year's brain scan and hoping for the best. She says: ``A $6,000 deductible--that's just staggering.'' This is the kind of person ObamaCare was supposed to help. And changing the name of ObamaCare, as Kathleen Sebelius has recommended today, isn't going to solve the problems for this patient with the $6,000 deductible. She got the insurance, she got the coverage, but she still cannot get care, and that is a fundamental problem with this health care law. The other thing this New York Times article points out is that people can't meet their deductibles, and they also can't meet their doctor. Patricia told the newspaper that if she switches to a policy with a lower deductible next year, she will get a smaller network of doctors, which means she will lose access to the specialists taking care of her. A lot of people are finding that they are in the same situation-- losing access to their doctors. Sometimes it is because the insurance has these narrow networks of health care providers. Sometimes it is just because the doctors are so overburdened that you can't get an appointment. There was an Associated Press report that came out over the weekend, the title was: ``Health Law Impacts Primary Care Doc Shortage.'' We already knew there was a shortage of primary care doctors in the country, also a shortage of specialists, also a shortage of nurses. The President's health care law has made it worse. The Associated Press article quoted an insurance agent in California named Anthony Halby, who says he has clients tell him that their ObamaCare plan made it extremely difficult for them to find primary care doctors. As he says, ``Coverage does not equal access.'' He is advising his clients to skip ObamaCare next year and pay more for insurance with a broader network so they can at least see the doctors they want, the doctors they choose, the doctors they need. He tells people: The premiums are going to be higher because there's no subsidy. However, I'm going to guarantee you can [actually] keep your doctor. So people are finding they are paying more, when they were promised by President Obama, by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that they would pay less. But she is the same one who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. So people are having to put off care they need because Washington says they have to pay for things they don't want, they don't need, and they can't afford. People are finding out that coverage isn't the same as care, and millions of people are finding out they can't meet their deductible or their doctor. That is not what the American people wanted from health care reform. People wanted access to the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is what they wanted. Instead, what they got are all these new Washington mandates, all these new expenses, all these new problems. What was the President's solution to that? He said: Put more people on Medicaid. He told Governors around the country to expand the Medicaid Program--make sure people have gotten on Medicaid. We know that is a system that has been broken for a long time. The question we continue to ask is: Can somebody who has gotten a Medicaid card printed up and given to them or sent to them, can they actually see a doctor? The Department of Health and Human Services says: Don't worry about that. What did the inspector general say this week? Yesterday in the New York Times: ``Half of Doctors Listed as Serving Medicaid Patients Are Unavailable, Investigation Finds.'' Who did the investigation? The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. So even though Health and Human Services says all of these doctors are available to take care of Medicaid patients, their own inspector general of the Department says not true--not true. Only half of the doctors listed as serving Medicaid patients are available. This is what we are dealing with. That is why Republicans are going to vote to repeal the entire health care law. Meanwhile, we will also vote to strip away the worst and most destructive parts of the law: things such as the arbitrary 30-hour workweek which has been damaging to part-time workers across the country; things such as the unfair medical device tax that sends American jobs overseas, threatens lifesaving innovation. The Republicans are going to talk about finally giving people choices. That is what people want with health care. They want choices. They want availability. They want affordability. That is what they are looking for--available, affordable care and choices, not more Washington mandates--and, finally, giving access to the health care people wanted all along. Kathleen Sebelius may come out and give a lecture on lessons of leadership. Changing the name of this health care law from ObamaCare to anything else isn't going to make it any better for the people across this country who are finding out that the President's promises were empty promises; that they have been intentionally deceived as to the way this health care law was presented and passed, and now they find out their insurance is less affordable, their costs of care are going up, the availability of that care is going down, and they have lost their choices. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in his Inaugural Address to the Nation in 2001, President George W. Bush said: We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. In Wyoming, we have a quality leader who has embraced these ideals and is committed to sharing them with future generations. It is a distinct honor to recognize my friend, Secretary of State Max Maxfield, for his lifetime of service as a dedicated public servant. I invite my colleagues to celebrate his contributions as he steps down after sharing over 47 years of experience with the people of Wyoming. In America, we demand a great deal from our leaders. We expect that they will be wise, altruistic, and that they will carry the hearts of the people with them in all they do. Max has done all of this--and more. He has dedicated his career to helping others and furthering his vision for the success of Wyoming. In doing so, our State has thrived. Max's career as a public servant is long and distinguished. Max worked for 23 years as the executive director of the YMCA in Casper. He also served as the head of the Wyoming Make-A-Wish Foundation. He then led the Wyoming Recreation Commission and 2 years later the Wyoming Department of Commerce. In 1998 Max was elected as the State auditor for the two terms and then in 2006 as the Wyoming secretary of state for two additional terms. With his passion for excellence and his pride in Wyoming, Max took great responsibility in his commitment to promoting growth and prosperity for all. It is sometimes thought that talented leaders must sacrifice their own private pursuits for the good of the cause. Max has successfully demonstrated that it is possible to be a strong leader and still remain true to one's passions. Max and his wife Gayla have been lifelong advocates of giving back. Max has served on the boards of numerous charitable organizations. Among them, he is particularly passionate about helping children and animals. He currently serves as a board member of the Cheyenne Animal Shelter and in the past has worked with the Wyoming Congressional Award Program, Special Olympics, the Wyoming Children's Society, and Laramie County United Way. Max and Gayla have touched the lives of and positively impacted every person they have met. Max Maxfield has long been a trustee for Wyoming, and his leadership has shaped the direction of our State. Indeed, Max and Gayla's contributions have benefited not only the governance of Wyoming but every community they have visited, every nonprofit organization they have supported, every friend and stranger they have met, and certainly every pet for which they have found a home. I trust that in his retirement Max will continue to remain active in the public sphere. While continuing to support causes that are near and dear to their hearts, Max and Gayla will enjoy quality time with their children, grandchildren, and beloved golden retrievers. My wife, Bobbi, and I are honored to thank him for his service to the great State of Wyoming. Even more, we are blessed to call him our friend. Please join me in thanking Max Maxfield for his decades of service and wishing him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Maegan Murphy for her hard work as an intern in my Casper, WY, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Maegan is a native of Casper, WY, and a graduate of Natrona County High School. She currently attends Casper College, where she is studying preoccupational therapy and Spanish. 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 Maegan 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 Chelsea Rodekuhr for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne, WY, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Chelsea is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne Central High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is studying physiology and business. 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 Chelsea 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 wish to express our Nation's deepest thanks and to honor the life of Col. Eliot N. Pearl, U.S. Air Force (Ret.). On July 12, 2014, Colonel Pearl died at the age of 95 peacefully at his home in Silver Spring, MD. Today, Colonel Pearl's family will lay him to rest at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors in recognition of his 36 years of service to our Nation. In 1939, Eliot graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Instead of becoming a doctor, Eliot chose to serve his Nation during World War II, much to the chagrin of his father. He was commissioned into the Army Air Corps and served as a cryptographic message center officer. Colonel Pearl served two active duty tours in World War II and the Korean war including a deployment to Panama. Colonel Pearl was also one of the founding instructors of the Department of Defense's cryptology schoolhouse. After Colonel Pearl separated from active duty service, he continued to serve our Nation in the Air Force Reserve for another 25 years concurrently working as a cryptologist at the National Security Agency, Fort Meade, MD. On August 16, 1978, Colonel Pearl retired from the Air Force. He was awarded the American Theater Service Medal, World War II Victory Medal, and National Defense Service Medal. We continue to live safe and free because of individuals like Colonel Pearl. He committed his life to serving our Nation while in uniform and as a civilian. Eliot defended our Nation and led the way for the next generation that will secure our future. Colonel Pearl's beloved son David and his beloved second wife Joyce, preceded him in death. He is survived by his sons, Mark A. Pearl (Pamela), Scott M. Pearl (Renee) and Geoffrey B. Anthony Pearl; five loving grandchildren: David, Vincent, Samuel, Anthony and Daniel; his devoted sister Eva Erony; his first wife Thelma Pearl; his loving niece Susan Erony (Jay Jaroslav); and his nephew Alan Erony. As we say goodbye, we also say thank you for your service that keeps our Nation strong and free. May God bless Colonel Pearl and his family, and welcome him with open arms.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Emily Kath 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. Emily is a native of Powell, WY, and a graduate of Powell High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is studying communications and prelaw. 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 Emily 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 Grant Rogers 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. Grant is a native of Jackson, WY, and a graduate of Jackson Hole High School. He currently attends the University of Wyoming, where he is studying political science and economics. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Grant 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 Ian Worthington for his hard work as an intern in my Republican policy committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office. Ian is from Charleston, SC, and a graduate of Porter-Gaud School. He currently attends Georgetown University where he is studying towards a bachelor of science in foreign service, majoring in science, technology and international affairs. 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 Ian 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. Last Wednesday Americans all across the country were preparing for Thanksgiving. They were traveling. Many of them were going to visit friends and family and places around their communities, their State or the country. What did the Obama administration do when it thought nobody was actually paying attention? It snuck out a huge new regulation that imposes job-crushing environmental restrictions. Politico ran an article on it later that day. The headline was: ``The most expensive regulation ever. Obama rolls out a major EPA rule.'' Why would the President do that? Why would he put out a major rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, affecting millions of Americans, and do it right before a holiday? If these regulations were such a good idea, we would think the administration--as the administration claims it is a good idea--would put it out in a way that people would be paying attention. I want to know why the administration did this in a way to hide the regulations from the American people. President Obama didn't say a word about it that day. Instead, he pardoned a turkey. The turkey got a better deal than the American people did last week. They are the ones who are going to be paying for the President's expensive and destructive regulation. Here is what is happening. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule that would dramatically slash the limits of ground- level ozone. The rule runs 626 pages. Then we add on the appendix--over 500 additional pages. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about the new rule. They had an editorial on it Friday with this headline: ``Highway to the Danger Ozone.'' It says: ``Like so many other such rules, this one twists decades-old air pollution laws to restructure the U.S. energy industry and gradually ban fossil-fuel-fired power.'' We have fossil fuel-fired power gradually being banned as this administration tries to restructure the U.S. energy industry. It says: ``Coal is the first target.'' The article also adds: ``But natural gas is next.'' The current limit on ozone is 75 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to cut that number down to as little as 70, 65, even 60 parts per billion. The Agency estimates that the new rule could cost nearly $17 billion every year--$17 billion a year in costs. Most of the country would fail to meet Washington's tough new standards if they were in place today. As much as 95 percent of the country would be unable to comply with the new regulations if they go down to 60 parts per billion. States, counties, and cities would have to curb their energy production and limit manufacturing. That will mean far less economic growth and fewer people working. It will raise the cost of everyday living, and it will destroy middle-class jobs. There is no question about it. This rule will undermine energy reliability. It will stall manufacturing investment, and it will smother economic opportunity for middle-class families. It costs too much, and there is very little benefit. It doesn't matter to the extreme environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party who support it. The Obama administration is once again turning a deaf ear to Americans--the people who want Washington to focus on jobs. That is what we saw in the election earlier this month. The people of this country want the administration to focus on jobs. The administration claims its tough new rule will lead to new health benefits. What about the health damage done to people who lose their jobs because of the rule? In March 2012 the Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety issued a report titled ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick.'' It is a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment. According to the testimony and scientific research that was reviewed by the subcommittee, unemployment caused by excessive regulation--such as the new ozone rule--increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses, and premature deaths. That raises health care costs. It hurts the health of children and the well-being of families. The Obama administration doesn't want to hear it and certainly doesn't want to talk about it. Bipartisan majorities in Congress have rejected the President's energy policies. Senate Democrats wouldn't even bring up his cap and trade plan for a vote in this body. What does the President do? Does he learn the lesson that the American people don't want his enormously expensive, job-crushing policies? Does he listen to the voters in the most recent elections--people who sent a clear message they weren't happy with the direction the country is headed? No, not President Obama--he goes ahead and does it anyway. People are concerned about jobs. They are concerned about the economy. The President is focused, though, on making it tougher for the private sector to create jobs and tougher for the economy to grow. He purposely is going around the American people and their representatives in Congress and taking this drastic step on his own. Why? Because he knows even Democrats in Congress do not support him. So what are the Democrats who control the Senate right now going to do about it? If history is any indication, they are not going to do anything. Democrats in Congress are going to just roll over and accept another destructive policy by President Obama. That is what they did with the health care law--a terrible law. Democrats in Congress pushed it through anyway because President Obama told them to do it. Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House at the time. She said: First you have to pass the bill before you get to find out what is in it. Well, now even Democrats are admitting it was a bad idea as they are learning more and more what is in this bill for which they voted. The senior Senator from New York said the other day that the health care law ``wasn't the change we were hired to make.'' He said, with the economy in bad shape, it was a focus on ``the wrong problem.'' That is from a Senator who voted for the health care law. Well, today the Senator is right when he says it was a focus on the wrong problem. With this new ozone regulation, the President is still focused on the wrong problem. He should still be looking for ways to grow America's economy, not ways to tie it up with more redtape. President Obama has made the wrong choice time and time again, adding more regulations, more rules, more bureaucracy. He continues to push extreme policies he knows the American people reject. The President is using unelected and unaccountable czars to go around Congress and the public. His latest Executive action shows his Presidency is failing and floundering. President Obama is not even waiting to try to work with a Republican Congress or when Republicans take the majority in January. He is acting on his own right now. Well, in January Republicans in Congress will listen to Americans and focus on the priorities of the American people. We will hold the Obama administration accountable for its destructive overreach. We will listen to people who are struggling under Obama's redtape and suffering because of it. We will do everything possible to stop this legislation and help Americans have better job opportunities in the future. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield back all time.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, with regard to the health care law, the proof has come out today. The administration has been cooking the books. That is not just me saying it. It has come out all across the press. USA Today, just out: ``Obama administration gave bad health exchange numbers.'' Associated Press: ``Oops, administration erred on health law signups.'' Let's take a look at this. The Department of Health and Human Services said Thursday--this is reading from USA Today--it made a mistake in how it calculated enrollments under the Affordable Care Act, including 400,000 dental plans in its figures for medical plans. Those dental plans allow the Obama administration to claim more than 7 million enrollments and 7 million was long considered the magic number, the magic number that would allow the new health insurance exchanges to be sustainable. What does the Secretary of Health and Human Services say? Today she said this mistake is unacceptable. I agree with the Secretary. This mistake is unacceptable, but it is not a surprise to the American people. We have questioned a long time what numbers the administration was putting out. I think it is fascinating that the administration has continued to lower and lower the numbers as more and more information and research has been done, and they can hide it no longer that they were cooking the books. Earlier today Bloomberg went up to the--with the story based on analysis from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee found the Obama administration has included people who purchased this stand-alone dental coverage and now HHS has admitted the duplicity. Let's take a look at this. On May 1 Health and Human Services released exchange enrollment information for a period from October 1, 2013, through April 19, 2014. At the time Health and Human Services said over 8 million people had selected a plan through an exchange, either the State or Federal exchange. In the report, HHS also disclosed 1.1 million selected to stand-alone dental plans through the Federal exchanges. A footnote in that report said totals for stand-alone dental plans do not include individuals who are enrolled in the marketplace plans that provide integrated medical and dental coverage. So then on May 21, and after previously touting the 8.1 million exchange enrollees, Health and Human Services decided they would stop issuing additional reports. No more monthly ObamaCare exchange enrollment information. September 18, in testimony before the House Oversight Committee, the CMS Administrator, Marilyn Tavenner, testified that there were 7.3 million people enrolled in the health insurance marketplace coverage as of August 15. Remember the magic number for saying this was a sustainable program was still 7 million. When we take a look at the oversight committee's analysis it shows nearly 400,000 of these enrollees didn't purchase insurance through the exchange for health care, rather stand-alone dental coverage. That takes the total number to under 7 million. On November 10, earlier this month, Secretary Burwell said there were 7.1 million exchange enrollees as of the end of October. However, she also failed to break out the coverage of those stand-alone dental insurance policies, indicating the true number as of last month, likely closer to 6.7 million or 6.8 million individuals. The nearly 20 percent drop in the exchange enrollees suggests that once many people learn about the ObamaCare problems, extremely high deductibles, narrow networks, they stop paying. They stop paying their premium in spite of the fact that there continues to be large government subsidies they are receiving. This drop is likely the central reason HHS dramatically lowered its exchange estimates earlier this month saying that by the end of the next year, instead of the 13 million people predicted by the Congressional Budget Office that there would be about only 9.1 million people enrolled. I have heard from my colleague from Connecticut who came and told an individual story, but the health care law overall remains very unpopular. It is so unpopular that as of earlier this week and all of the polling ever done about the health care law, it is more unpopular now than ever before. Popularity is at an alltime low and unpopularity, disapproval is at an alltime high. Why would that be? There are a number of reasons. One is the front page of the New York Times the other day. November 15, cost of coverage under the care act set to increase. President Obama stood before the American people and said under his plan the cost of insurance policies would go down $2,500 per family. They have not gone down. They headed in the other direction, and again this year the cost of coverage under the health care act is set to increase. It is no surprise people are concerned when the President tells them one thing and something else happens, they question the President. There are a number of reasons it is not popular. That is just one. The President's solutions of putting many more people on Medicaid under the health care law, a program that has already failed and is failing and continues to be a problem--the front page of the Wall Street Journal, Friday, 14 of November, ``As More Join Medicaid, Health Systems Feel Strain''--stories about people who can't get care, people who are providers who can't afford to provide the care for Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is so low. That is the President's solution-- force more people on to Medicaid because the President's focus during all of these discussions has been on coverage. As a doctor I will tell you the focus should be on the word ``care.'' People want care, and they know what they want. They know what they need in health care reform. They want affordable care, quality care, and choice. That is what a Republican plan will look like to replace and strip out the terrible parts of this health care law. Then for people living all across the country in rural communities--I know in the Presiding Officer's State and in mine, we know what impact the loss of a rural hospital has on that community. But yet, front page, USA Today, last weekend, November 14 to 16, ``Rural Hospitals in Critical Condition.'' ObamaCare critics say the law is speeding up the demise of the facilities. There is a map of the United States, a list of 43 hospitals that have closed since January of 2010 as a result of the health care law. You say: Is it as a result of the health care law? I believe it is, because it was Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects of the health care law, who said and recently wrote that between now and the year 2020, up to 1,000 hospitals in the United States were likely to close. We know what the impact of the cuts that happen to our seniors on Medicare as a result of the health care law will have to rural hospitals, where a disproportionate number of the patients are seniors on Medicare. The hospitals cannot sustain themselves. That was part of the original budget numbers as they looked at the health care law, as we debated it on this Senate floor and said: Please do not pass this, Democrats--who one by one by one voted for the health care law--because it is going to impact our rural hospitals. Now we see 43 hospitals in rural communities all around the country and tell stories of people who could not get care, had to travel such a long distance in that critical hour after a heart attack, were unable to survive. So the health care law continues to be very unpopular across the country. Yes, it is possible for colleagues to come to the floor and tell a story about one individual whose life may have been improved as a result of the health care law. But across the country, there are many people who are finding they cannot keep their doctor, they cannot keep their child's pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their local community because of the specific components of the health care law which have caused so much damage and wreaked havoc in communities all around America. I continue to hear from people in Wyoming who have lost the insurance that worked for them and they liked. They had to buy other insurance, much more expensive, that covered things they did not need, did not want, and cannot afford. Many now find themselves for the first time without insurance when they had it before. It worked for them and their families. So that is why all across the country, people are saying: This health care law is not working for me. That is why the signups are down and the belief is that fewer people are going to sign up because for them they do not feel they are getting good value. They see what they are going to have to pay out of pocket for deductibles, what they have to pay out of pocket for copays, what their premiums are. As a result, they are saying: No, thank you. Even with the subsidies, Health and Human Services has significantly lowered their predictions of how many people will sign up for the health care law this year. That is in spite of the fact that the fines are going up. Then, on top of all of this, there is a health care MIT economist, Professor Jonathan Gruber, who has made comments that are disparaging of American citizens. He has said not just once but time and time again, as the videos continue to come out of this Gruber miniseries of TV videos, that this health care law was sold to the American people by trying to confuse them. He has questioned their intelligence. It was Nancy Pelosi who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. American people are furious about the way this administration has treated them, has behaved toward them, and has acted upon their willingness to believe an administration and believe a Speaker of the House at a time people wanted health care reform in America. People did not get what they wanted. They did not get what they were promised. So, today, I come to the floor to say to my colleague who just spoke about the health care law, that perhaps for the folks he mentioned it has worked. We want health care to work for people all across the country so they can get the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is what they want. So today, the proof comes out, the administration has been cooking the books. As USA Today says, the Obama administration gave bad health exchange numbers and the Associated Press starts its story on this very same topic with one word, ``Oops!'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.