John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jessica Bisiar for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jessica is a native of Casper, WY and a graduate of Natrona County High School. She currently attends Casper College, where she is studying political science and international studies. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last few months. I want to thank Jessica for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Erin Sims for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Erin 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 zoology. 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 few months. I want to thank Erin for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Caroline Danielson for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Caroline is a native of Casper, WY and a graduate of Natrona County High School. She currently attends Casper College and the University of Wyoming where she is studying distributed social sciences with an emphasis in political science. 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 few months. I want to thank Caroline 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today because Democrats in Washington continue to put out misleading information about the President's health care law. Last week the Senator from Connecticut came to the floor and said Republicans have, in his words, gone silent when it comes to talking about the health care law. He claimed there was a quiet acceptance that the law is working. Well, I just want to correct the record and make it perfectly clear Republicans have not gone quiet because the health care law is not working. The American people are not going quiet either. They are not going quiet when it comes to talking about the devastating side effects they are feeling from the health care law. I hear it from people when I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I heard it last weekend. I heard it last night on a telephone townhall meeting, and when I travel I hear about it--even just passing through the airport in Denver on the way home, which I do each week. As chairman of the Republican policy committee, one of my responsibilities is to study how policies that come out of Washington-- like the President's health care law--affect people all across America, including States such as Colorado, where I change planes each week. Last week the Denver Post had an op-ed written by Dr. Cyndi Tucker, an obstetrician/gynecologist who practices medicine in Thornton, CO, outside Denver. Her op-ed was published in the Denver Post, which is, of course, the statewide newspaper in Colorado. The headline on the column in the Denver Post was: ``Red tape isn't health care reform.'' Now, remember the amount of regulations ObamaCare has created is a redtape tower of paper over 7 feet tall. Dr. Cyndi Tucker, from one of the suburbs of Colorado, wants us to know about the health care law from her perspective as a practicing Colorado physician. What she has to say is that the prognosis isn't good. She writes: At my practice, I've found that the ACA disrupts the doctor-patient relationship by drowning us both in paperwork. ObamaCare authors--and the politicians . . . who voted for it--promised that it would provide quality, affordable health care to Coloradans. Yet it does exactly the opposite. For doctors, it makes health care more and more complex, more expensive, and increasingly more impersonal. Not more personal, which is what we want as doctors, as somebody who practiced medicine for 25 years. She says it makes it more impersonal. And for patients, it makes finding a cheap health plan or finding a doctor more difficult--not less difficult as the President promised, not cheaper, but more difficult, as the doctor points out. For me, that is a very damaging and maybe even life-threatening side effect of the President's health care law. President Obama was in Colorado earlier this month. This week he is doing the same thing in Seattle and California. Instead of meeting with more campaign donors--which is what the President is doing--the President should meet with doctors and patients--and, specifically, doctors such as this obstetrician-gynecologist in Colorado. He should sit down with some of the women who are patients of this doctor. I think they would like to ask the President about these devastating side effects of his health care law and explain to him about how it is hurting them and hurting their families. The disruptive impact the law is having on care is drowning patients and doctors in red tape. But that is not the only side effect of the law that is hurting American families. A recent Gallup poll earlier this month found that only 8 percent of Americans are spending less money on health care than they did a year ago. President Obama promised the American people they would save $2,500 a year per family under his health care law. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, was on ``Meet the Press'' at one point and said that everyone's rates would go down. Well, Democrats in the Senate who voted for the law promised the same thing, and it just didn't happen. People are paying more all across America. People are paying more in Washington State and in California, where the President is visiting. Why is he there? He is meeting with campaign donors. He is collecting campaign money. People are paying more all across the country. They are paying more for health care insurance in Wyoming. People are paying more in Colorado, where the doctor who wrote in the Denver Post is and where she sees patients. There is a recent study that found health insurance premiums for an average 40-year-old woman in Colorado are 20 percent higher this year than last year. That was before she was forced on to the ObamaCare exchange. President Obama says Democrats who voted for the law should ``forcefully defend and be proud'' of the health care law. When he was in Colorado a couple of weeks ago, did President Obama forcefully defend these premium increases because of the law? When he is traveling this week, is the President going to forcefully defend patients and doctors experiencing the exact opposite of what the Democrats promised? Are Democrats in the Senate proud that only 8 percent of Americans are spending less on health care this year than they did before? Costs are going up so fast that last month State regulators in Colorado decided to add another tax on every insurance policy in the State in order--get this--to bail out the State ObamaCare exchange. They added an extra tax on every insurance policy in the State in order to bail out the State ObamaCare exchange. Now, that is not just on people buying the policy in the exchange. They are charging this new tax on every person in Colorado who buys health insurance just to cover those who buy it through the exchange. Well, that is a very expensive side effect for the families of Colorado as a result of the President's health care law. So this health care law is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses, and the doctors who take care of those patients, and it is terrible for taxpayers. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this health care law. Where are the Democrats willing to forcefully defend these costly and damaging side effects of their health care law? People in Colorado and all across America received letters telling them their plans were being cancelled because of the law. People lost access to their doctors, like this OB/GYN physician who wrote her op-ed editorial for the Denver Post. She says she has had to stop seeing Medicare patients because of the new redtape in the health care law. So people in Colorado lost their right to choose the health plan that works for them and their families. Republicans are not going to quietly accept the terrible side effects of the President's health care law. We are going to keep coming to the floor. We are going to keep standing for American families who are being hurt by this law. We are going to keep offering new solutions-- real solutions--for better health care without all of these tragic side effects. That means patient-centered reforms that get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. It means giving people choices, not Washington mandates. It means allowing people to buy health insurance that works for them and their families because they know what is best for them. Democrats who voted for this health care law have failed to answer the real concern of the American people, which was affordable quality care. American families will not go quiet about the harm Democrats have done to them with this health care law. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kathryn Kempema for her hard work as an intern in my Indian Affairs Committee office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Kathryn is a native of Laramie, WY and a graduate of Laramie Senior High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming where she is studying mechanical engineering and mathematics. 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 few months. I want to thank Kathryn 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 JR Kane 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. JR is a native of Big Horn, WY and a graduate of Big Horn High School. He currently attends the University of Montana where he is studying human biology. 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 during his time in my office. I want to thank JR 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 LeeAnn Grapes 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. LeeAnn is a native of Casper, WY and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She recently earned a degree from the University of Wyoming where she studied international studies 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 few months. I want to thank LeeAnn 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 Chandler Harris for his hard work as an intern in my Indian Affairs Committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Chandler is a native of Cokeville, WY and a graduate of Cokeville High School. He currently attends the University of Wyoming where he is studying history. 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 during his time in my office. I want to thank Chandler for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Diego Zepeda for his hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Diego is from Gillette, WY and a graduate of Campbell County High School. He currently attends Northern Wyoming Community College where he is studying business management. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts during his time in my office. I want to thank Diego for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Dylan Crouse for his hard work as an intern in my Republican Policy Committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Dylan is a native of Basin, WY and a graduate of Riverside High School. He currently attends Colgate University where he is studying history and Spanish. 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 during his time in my office. I want to thank Dylan 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 come to the floor today to respond to some of the comments by the Senator from Connecticut and specifically with regard to the health care law. I come with an interest because I did part of my medical training in that State, still have many friends who practice medicine in Connecticut, and feel from the comments I hear from them that they see a very different side of the picture than what we hear from the Senator from Connecticut. For some time now Republicans have been talking about the terrible side effects of the President's health care law. The Senator from Connecticut made some references to a family who certainly may have been helped by the health care law, but there are clearly people in that State who are being harmed by the health care law. In the past I have spoken on this floor about a story in the Washington Post about how the health care law is hurting families all across Connecticut. The article said that two insurance carriers in the Senator's home State of Connecticut have proposed increasing their health insurance premiums by an average of about 12 percent. I didn't hear the Senator from Connecticut make reference to that today. So some people will have smaller increases than the average, but many people in Connecticut are going to pay much more. That is an expensive side effect families are going to have to deal with because of the President's health care law for which the Democrats in the Senate have voted. There was another article a week or so ago in The Hill newspaper with the headline ``Personal data on ObamaCare enrollees may be compromised.'' It says: Connecticut's health insurance exchange acknowledged Friday that the personal information of some enrollees may have been compromised. Someone found a backpack on a street in Hartford, CT, containing personal information of about 400 people, and it looks as if some of the information is connected to the exchange. It is interesting. There was a story in the Danbury, CT, newspaper. The headline is ``Affordable Care Act could cost schools big bucks.'' So it is not just health care; the Affordable Care Act itself could cost the schools big bucks. I haven't heard the Senator from Connecticut make reference to that. This could cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars they didn't expect to pay. The Senator from New York is here, and I don't know if the Senator has time locked in. If not, I wanted to speak for a few more moments because this continues to be a major impact. The law includes a special tax on what are called the Cadillac plans. These are generous health insurance plans that some people--such as union workers, police, and school employees--get in some places. Another big thing is the way the law defines full-time workers, and this is a problem we are seeing in a lot of places. Employees are considered full time under the health care law if they work 30 hours a week. So schools--schools that are being impacted--are having to provide insurance for those people or cut back their hours. It is hurting a lot of folks in the Senator's home State and specifically in the school districts in Connecticut. What they are finding is that they are having to pay more money to buy insurance for the people whom they can't cut back. So the school superintendent in Danbury, CT, wrote to the congressional delegation from Connecticut asking for help. According to a newspaper story from Danbury, he wrote: Unless there is some reasonable modification to the ACA [the President's health care law] there will be a tremendous drain on our limited resources. So when I see the Senator from Connecticut with a sign that says the health care law works, I would say: Not for many people, and it is harming people, including students in our schools. The law is a drain on resources of schools, towns, and counties across the country--a very costly side effect of the health care law at the local level. I hear the same from my constituents in Wyoming who are seeing similar decisions having to be made, tough choices. I know the Senator from Connecticut is hearing it from his constituents, such as the superintendent of schools in Danbury. Middle-class families are getting smaller paychecks because of the law. School districts are getting stretched thin by the health care law. Families are having to pay higher premiums because of the health care law, and on top of that they are being exposed to potential fraud and identity theft in the exchanges created by the health care law, as evidenced by a backpack found on a street in Hartford, CT, containing names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, and birth dates of people who signed up for the exchange. Republicans are going to keep talking about these devastating, dangerous side effects of the Democrats' health care law. We are going to keep pushing for real health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week I heard the majority leader speak about people who are happy with the President's health care law. While I agree that some people have been helped by the law, many Americans have been hurt by the law's destructive side effects. Republicans have given examples of people from all across the country of all ages and in all kinds of situations being harmed by the health care law, and we found that a disproportionate number of those being hurt are women. These are middle-class Americans who work hard, do the right thing, and they just want to care for themselves and their families. The health care law that the President wrote--and every Senate Democrat in the Senate voted for--is standing between them and the lives they want to live. That is what I am hearing from my neighbors back home in Wyoming, and I think I hear from more individuals than many of the Senators do because I was a physician and practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years. I have taken care of patients and families. I would like to share with everyone what I have been hearing from the women around the State of Wyoming and how this law has been impacting their lives. I got a letter from a woman in Gillette, WY, and she said: ``I wanted to share with you my frustration and worry concerning the Affordable Care Act.'' She said she and her husband have three daughters--ages 12, 9, and 3--and her husband started a new business. She said: ``Thanks to the new health care law our insurance premium increased $560 per month.'' That is $6,700 more a year that this family has to pay for insurance under the President's health care law. She wrote: As we struggle to plan for our girls' futures, attempt to make my husband's business prosper, and dream of what our future may hold once our children are raised, it is disheartening that we will now pay nearly $17,000 a year for health insurance. She said: There are so many things we could, and should, be able to do with that money. That additional $560 per month could be put in our girls' college funds, be given back to our church and community. Sadly, we don't have the luxury of deciding how to use that hard-earned money. We have been told by Washington that we will spend our money on health insurance. I have never felt so completely let down by the American government. Here is a woman who just wants to raise her family, send her daughters to college, maybe grow the family business, and there she is in Wyoming struggling with the burden Washington Democrats imposed on her with this terrible health care law and its damaging and disheartening side effects. President Obama says the Democrats who voted for this law should ``forcefully defend and be proud'' of the health care law. Are Democrats in the Senate who voted for this health care law proud of what they are doing to this woman and her family? Are Democrats willing to come to the floor and forcefully defend and be proud that this Wyoming family has to spend thousands of dollars on health insurance instead of on their daughters' college funds? Millions of women all across America are in the same situation as this woman in Gillette, WY. There has been a new study that looked at how much more money people are paying this year for insurance in the ObamaCare exchanges than they paid last year before the Obama health care law kicked in. They found that a lot of women are paying much more because of the President's health care law. In North Carolina--and we just heard from the Senator from North Carolina--an average 27-year-old woman is paying $1,100 more for health insurance coverage than she did last year. In North Carolina a 64-year- old woman is paying $5,000 more because of all of the requirements of the health care law. Is that Senator willing to come back and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law and what it has done to these women in her home State? It is the same in Arkansas. An average 40-year-old woman pays $1,300 more this year because of the law. A 64-year-old woman in Arkansas is paying $3,400 more this year in the exchanges. In one State after another, women are paying more. Women of all ages are getting hurt. The Washington Post had a very interesting story about this on June 24. It said: ``Older women bear the brunt of higher health insurance costs under Obamacare.'' That is the headline from the Washington Post--``Older women bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare.'' The article says a new report found ``women age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange.'' The article says, ``These women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care Act.'' Under President Obama and the Democrats' plan, older women are bearing the brunt of higher health insurance costs. This is a disgraceful side effect of the Democrats' health care law. Women across the country are paying more money for insurance they do not need, do not want, and will likely never use. Are Democrats willing to come to the floor of the Senate and forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that older women are bearing the brunt of higher health insurance costs under this law? I got another letter from a rancher from Newcastle, WY. She and her husband were paying $650 a month for insurance. She said, ``We don't carry maternity insurance because we have completed our family.'' This woman has had a hysterectomy. I get letters more than maybe most because I am a physician who practiced in Wyoming for a long time. She says their insurance agent told them they couldn't renew their policy at the end of last year. The reason? Because it didn't meet the President's requirement that they have to have maternity coverage, so they had to choose a new policy from the exchange. Now, remember, she doesn't need or want maternity coverage and she is never going to use it because she has had a hysterectomy. According to President Obama and the Democrats, it doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter. They were paying $650 a month before ObamaCare. She said her insurance agent quoted her rates for a comparable policy of anywhere between $1,300 and $1,600 a month or they could take a bronze policy with much less coverage than they had before for $900--still more than they were paying before. So $3,000 a year more than they paid before ObamaCare, and the out-of-pocket costs would be much higher and much more difficult for the family. This woman from Wyoming writes: We're being forced out of a good policy, which we pay for with hard-earned money, which we choose, into a dangerous financial health care situation, with less coverage, and which puts my husband and I, who are proud of our own sustainability, on to what we consider the welfare rolls by needing a government subsidy to afford a plan that we don't want or need. We don't want, we don't need, and we are forced on to it. She writes: To say that we're angry is an understatement. Why is this happening? Why can Obama force me into this? We feel helpless. This isn't what the President of the United States promised the American people. It is not what every Democrat who voted for the health care law promised the American people. It seems to me that President Obama and Democrats in the Senate just don't get it. All these women wanted was a chance to buy insurance coverage that worked for them. They wanted the right to be left alone to make their own choices about their family's health care, not to have Washington make choices for them. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. President Obama wasn't interested in listening to what women wanted. He wanted to tell--he wanted to mandate--he wanted to tell them and mandate what he thought was best for them. It is outrageous. I hear from people almost every day who are feeling the costly and cruel side effects of the health care law. I heard from a woman in Casper, WY, where I practiced and was chief of staff of the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper. She gets her insurance through her job. The costs have gone up so much under ObamaCare that she is worried about what might happen. She writes: I am concerned for what I might be facing when my employer has to comply with the [health care law] next year. I have not had children yet because of the effects the recession had on me and my husband. I would very much like to think we could have one in the next couple of years, however, the insurance fiasco worries me. So this woman is worried that the health care law might actually affect her and her husband having a family. Why did President Obama take away the rights of women to choose what health coverage is right for them and their families? This was an active decision made by Democrats in this body and the President of the United States to take away the rights of women to choose what health coverage is right for them and their families. Why did President Obama raise the cost of health care and make it more expensive for women? These are just a few of the women who are being hurt by ObamaCare and just a few of the ways the President's health care law is affecting women all across America. Again, there are some people who have been helped by the law. Some people are happy with their insurance. Nobody is denying that. There are also people who have been hurt by the law and who can't afford it and who are devastated because of it. What does the President have to say to those people? Why won't President Obama sit down with just one of these women who has written to me and actually listen to the damage he has done to them, to their families, and to their health care as a result of his health care law? Why won't Democrats come to the floor of the Senate and talk about these millions of Americans--millions of women--whom they have harmed with the health care law? Republicans have offered ideas for health care reform that allow women to make choices on what is best for them and their families. If they want maternity coverage, they can find a policy that offers it. They wouldn't be forced to pay for what they don't need or don't want just because someone in Washington tells them they must. People wanted health care reform to give them access to quality, affordable care--not more expensive coverage. Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor. We are going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these expensive and offensive side effects. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and 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 rise today to discuss the nomination of Norman Bay. President Obama has nominated Mr. Bay to be a commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. The President has announced that if Mr. Bay is confirmed, his plan is to elevate Mr. Bay to the position of chairman of FERC. Over the past few months there has been much discussion about whether the President should have nominated Mr. Bay to be chairman, and I think there is very good reason to ask whether the President really should have nominated Mr. Bay at all. In my view Mr. Bay is not qualified to be a commissioner, let alone to be chairman of FERC. Mr. Bay has only 5 years of working experience in the energy sector--a total of 5 years. This is less time than the Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending with the Obama administration. During the nomination hearing, I specifically asked Mr. Bay about his lack of experience. In response, he cited his summer internship at a Department of Energy research facility during college--a summer internship during college. With all due respect, this man does not have the background, the qualifications, and certainly not the experience to take on this important role. The President has nominated Mr. Bay to replace FERC's current chairman Cheryl LaFleur. In contrast to Mr. Bay, whom the President has nominated to replace Ms. LaFleur, Ms. LaFleur has over 25 years of experience in the energy sector. That includes 4 years as a commissioner of FERC and 7 months as the chairman of FERC. I don't often agree with Ms. LaFleur's policies, but you cannot deny that she is qualified to serve. Mr. Bay's lack of experience is not the only reason I oppose his nomination. There are a number of outstanding factual disputes about Mr. Bay's tenure as the FERC's enforcement director. For example, there are serious allegations that the enforcement staff, during the time Mr. Bay has been in charge, has violated basic principles of due process. These allegations include the withholding of exculpatory evidence from subjects of FERC investigations. In May the Energy Law Journal published an article by William Scherman, who was a former general counsel of FERC and by two other attorneys familiar with this situation, and they write: ``There is a wide-spread view that the FERC enforcement process has become lop-sided and unfair.'' They said that: One need only to observe the fact that Enforcement Staff denies, in case after case, the existence of exculpatory or exonerating materials . . . only to . . . produce a subset of those materials too late in the process to be of use . . . in raising defenses. The authors explain that ``one of the fundamental principles of due process is that the government is not permitted to hide information from the accused that may aid in his or her defense.'' They say that ``[FERC] Enforcement Staff routinely fails to produce exculpatory documents''--routinely fails to produce exculpatory documents. During Mr. Bay's nominating hearing, I asked him about these allegations. At first he denied the allegations were true, but then he stated he was ``not aware of any instance in which Enforcement Staff has failed to produce exculpatory materials.'' So I asked him to clarify his remarks. I asked him whether the allegations were true or not. He pled ignorance. With all due respect, this answer is inexcusable. This is his staff doing his work under his direction. He should know whether they withheld the evidence from defendants. There are not only questions about his commitment to due process, but there are also questions about the President's nominee on whether he or anyone else at FERC suggested that an enforcement action be settled in return for approval of a merger. So there are questions about whether an enforcement action should be settled in return for approving a merger. The ranking member of the energy committee asked all about this during the nomination hearing. The ranking member of the committee asked Mr. Bay about the connection between FERC's enforcement settlement with Constellation Energy and FERC's approval of Constellation's merger with Exelon. The ranking member noted that FERC settled with Constellation the day before--1 day before it approved a merger between Constellation and Exelon. In fact, the enforcement settlement, which Mr. Bay himself signed, specifically mentions the merger between these two. The ranking member of the Energy Committee asked Mr. Bay whether he is concerned about the appearance of a quid pro quo between the settlement agreement one day and the merger approval the next. Mr. Bay admitted he would be concerned. The ranking member then asked if he or others suggested to FERC that Constellation should settle the enforcement action in order to get its merger approved. In response he said that ``[t]o the best of [his] recollection'' he didn't make such a suggestion and that he did not know what others at FERC--including his own staff--may have suggested. With all due respect to Mr. Bay, his answer is, at best, hard to believe. At the time FERC's enforcement settlement with Constellation was the largest enforcement settlement completed in the history of the agency. So they make this settlement, it is the largest enforcement settlement in the agency's history, and the next day they allow a merger which has created one of the Nation's largest utilities. Are we really to believe that Mr. Bay doesn't remember what he or others at FERC said to Constellation? Can we really believe that? I believe the energy committee or some other independent entity should get answers to these and other questions surrounding Mr. Bay's record before we decide--this Senate--to confirm and promote him. I know that some Senate Democrats are nervous about voting for Mr. Bay--and I believe rightfully so. These Senate Democrats have said they will vote for Mr. Bay only because they believe a so-called deal was cut with President Obama. Specifically, they say the President will allow Ms. LaFleur to continue serving as chairman for 9 months after her confirmation. The President hasn't put it in writing, hasn't really told all of the Members that. And even if the President had, this is no way for the Senate to be able to enforce it. The truth is this is a gimmick, and it is a gimmick invented specifically by Senate Democrats so they can once again avoid standing up to President Obama and the Senate majority leader. Let's be clear about what President Obama is asking the Senate to do. The President is asking the Senate to demote Cheryl LaFleur from being chairman--she is a highly qualified woman, a Democrat with over 25 years of experience in energy and 4 years of experience as a commissioner of FERC--in order to promote an unqualified man. Why should the Senate do this? The Senate majority leader put it this way in the Wall Street Journal. He said: I don't want her. ``I don't want her as chair.'' He said: ``She has done some stuff to do away with some of [Chairman] Wellinghoff's stuff.'' This is the majority leader of the Senate: ``I don't want her as chair.'' In short the President and the Senate majority leader want a rubber stamp. By all indications, they will get that with Mr. Bay. On May 20, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Bay admitted that he wasn't even following EPA regulations and their impact on electric reliability in this country. Two weeks later on June 4, in response to written questions, he stated the EPA's regulations are ``manageable.'' Well, either he is an exceptionally quick study or he doesn't take electric reliability seriously. FERC is an independent agency. It needs a highly qualified leader, a leader whose record is beyond reproach, a leader who will resist political interference from the White House and the majority leader, and Mr. Bay is not that individual. For these reasons, I am voting against Mr. Bay and urge all Members to do the same. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. My friend and colleague from Arizona is absolutely right. The three of us have traveled together to Ukraine. We have traveled together to Latvia and Lithuania. What we hear everywhere we go is: Please sell us natural gas. Please sell us energy. Please help us undermine what Putin is doing to us. Energy should be used as a geopolitical weapon, and it is the advances in technology in just the last decade that have made all of this possible. The Senators from Arizona and North Dakota are both correct. We are producing more now than ever. They are well aware of that throughout Europe and throughout the Baltics--to the point that Lithuania is even in the middle of acquiring an at-sea platform to change liquefied natural gas into natural gas--to warm it up, if you will, for use--and it is called the Independence. That is the name of this platform. It is to give them independence from Russia. That is what they are investing in, and now they are saying to us: Please send it our way. The technology has changed so much that in 2005 a book came out called ``Beyond Oil,'' and it was sent to every University of Wyoming first-year student coming in. They were invited to read it, and there was a whole section on liquefied natural gas. At the time the technology wasn't developed enough for us to be so blessed in the United States to produce it, so that they were talking about actually building terminals in Louisiana, Texas, to import liquefied natural gas from other places. Now we have reversed it. We are now in a position where we have such an abundance of liquefied natural gas, as my colleague from North Dakota said, we are flaring it off, burning it to the point of $1.5 million a day. That is the value of that gas, and there is also tax revenue that is not being collected because this isn't being sold, so our States could use the revenue. The Federal Government would benefit from us selling this rather than burning it, but yet we don't have the opportunity to do so because of the specifics of the laws with which we are faced. We need to change the law. We need to be able to export. We need to be able to have permits to export, and we are seeing a lot of foot- dragging by this administration, which is why there are bills on this floor, bipartisan pieces of legislation, to help us use our energy abundance as a geopolitical weapon to undermine Vladimir Putin's ability to use energy as a weapon of his own, a club against, as we have said, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--all of these areas that are so dependent upon Russia for their gas, when they would rather buy it from us. It would be an opportunity for us in America to become a net exporter in a way that would help balance our trade and balance our payments. It would bring cash back into the United States and we would be so much less dependent on the Middle East for sources of energy. We should be relying on that at home. I look to my colleague from Arizona and say he is absolutely right in his leadership, in his direction, and in his global view that he has seen in his incredible service to our country. He has seen the shift. He has seen the future, and he knows the future success for our country comes in exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe, to our NATO allies, to Ukraine. That is why we bring to the floor today the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, which we believe will help our country, help globally, and help us not just economically but help us geopolitically as well. I turn to my friends from either Arizona or North Dakota to continue in this discussion, and then I will get back to some specific things that are happening around the world.

Mr. BARRASSO. The legislation is bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats alike who realize there are incredible values to us as a nation to be exporting liquefied natural gas. At a time when the technology is there, the will is there, we need to get a vote on the Senate floor. I offered the amendment before and bring it again today as legislation, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. It is about energy, it is about security--our economic security, our energy security--and our opportunities on the geopolitical stage to use our resources to the best advantage of our Nation and our Nation's citizens. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his continued leadership in this area.

Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting. The Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Arizona, and I were reviewing this article in today's Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 10. The headline is ``In the Arctic, Shipping Route Is Set to Supply LNG to Asia,'' and there is a map of the globe. It says: Shipping companies in China and Japan said they would start a regular service to carry Siberian natural gas across the Arctic Ocean to East Asia, showing how Asian demand for the fuel is reshaping global shipping routes. So with the forces at play--Asia's demand for natural gas, Japan's move away from nuclear power, China's struggle with pollution--this is an opportunity for us to use a resource we have in the United States and export it in a very profitable way for our country, put people to work, increase tax revenues to the States, increase tax revenues to the Nation, and improve our balance of trade. The technology is now allowing us to do it, but the government is not. That is the biggest problem we have--a bureaucratic Federal Government that is not allowing what we have and what we have learned to use. The government is blocking it, and that is why we have come to the floor today to try to encourage additional exports to Europe and support the North Atlantic Energy Security Act.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. The legislation is bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats alike who realize there are incredible values to us as a nation to be exporting liquefied natural gas. At a time when the technology is there, the will is there, we need to get a vote on the Senate floor. I offered the amendment before and bring it again today as legislation, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. It is about energy, it is about security--our economic security, our energy security--and our opportunities on the geopolitical stage to use our resources to the best advantage of our Nation and our Nation's citizens. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his continued leadership in this area.

Mr. BARRASSO. My friend and colleague from Arizona is absolutely right. The three of us have traveled together to Ukraine. We have traveled together to Latvia and Lithuania. What we hear everywhere we go is: Please sell us natural gas. Please sell us energy. Please help us undermine what Putin is doing to us. Energy should be used as a geopolitical weapon, and it is the advances in technology in just the last decade that have made all of this possible. The Senators from Arizona and North Dakota are both correct. We are producing more now than ever. They are well aware of that throughout Europe and throughout the Baltics--to the point that Lithuania is even in the middle of acquiring an at-sea platform to change liquefied natural gas into natural gas--to warm it up, if you will, for use--and it is called the Independence. That is the name of this platform. It is to give them independence from Russia. That is what they are investing in, and now they are saying to us: Please send it our way. The technology has changed so much that in 2005 a book came out called ``Beyond Oil,'' and it was sent to every University of Wyoming first-year student coming in. They were invited to read it, and there was a whole section on liquefied natural gas. At the time the technology wasn't developed enough for us to be so blessed in the United States to produce it, so that they were talking about actually building terminals in Louisiana, Texas, to import liquefied natural gas from other places. Now we have reversed it. We are now in a position where we have such an abundance of liquefied natural gas, as my colleague from North Dakota said, we are flaring it off, burning it to the point of $1.5 million a day. That is the value of that gas, and there is also tax revenue that is not being collected because this isn't being sold, so our States could use the revenue. The Federal Government would benefit from us selling this rather than burning it, but yet we don't have the opportunity to do so because of the specifics of the laws with which we are faced. We need to change the law. We need to be able to export. We need to be able to have permits to export, and we are seeing a lot of foot- dragging by this administration, which is why there are bills on this floor, bipartisan pieces of legislation, to help us use our energy abundance as a geopolitical weapon to undermine Vladimir Putin's ability to use energy as a weapon of his own, a club against, as we have said, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--all of these areas that are so dependent upon Russia for their gas, when they would rather buy it from us. It would be an opportunity for us in America to become a net exporter in a way that would help balance our trade and balance our payments. It would bring cash back into the United States and we would be so much less dependent on the Middle East for sources of energy. We should be relying on that at home. I look to my colleague from Arizona and say he is absolutely right in his leadership, in his direction, and in his global view that he has seen in his incredible service to our country. He has seen the shift. He has seen the future, and he knows the future success for our country comes in exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe, to our NATO allies, to Ukraine. That is why we bring to the floor today the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, which we believe will help our country, help globally, and help us not just economically but help us geopolitically as well. I turn to my friends from either Arizona or North Dakota to continue in this discussion, and then I will get back to some specific things that are happening around the world.

Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting. The Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Arizona, and I were reviewing this article in today's Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 10. The headline is ``In the Arctic, Shipping Route Is Set to Supply LNG to Asia,'' and there is a map of the globe. It says: Shipping companies in China and Japan said they would start a regular service to carry Siberian natural gas across the Arctic Ocean to East Asia, showing how Asian demand for the fuel is reshaping global shipping routes. So with the forces at play--Asia's demand for natural gas, Japan's move away from nuclear power, China's struggle with pollution--this is an opportunity for us to use a resource we have in the United States and export it in a very profitable way for our country, put people to work, increase tax revenues to the States, increase tax revenues to the Nation, and improve our balance of trade. The technology is now allowing us to do it, but the government is not. That is the biggest problem we have--a bureaucratic Federal Government that is not allowing what we have and what we have learned to use. The government is blocking it, and that is why we have come to the floor today to try to encourage additional exports to Europe and support the North Atlantic Energy Security Act.

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, today I rise in support of Barrasso amendment No. 3453 to the underlying bill. This amendment actually has 36 cosponsors--36 of my fellow colleagues have cosponsored legislation called the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act of 2014, and this legislation is identical to the amendment we have on the floor today. The amendment restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this administration's EPA to encompass all the wet areas on farms, ranches, and suburban homes all across America. More specifically, the amendment eliminates the administration's proposed rule--a rule to implement this expansion of Federal authority, an expansion which I don't think the Federal Government should have or does have. But we do have a recently proposed rule, and through this proposed rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definition of waters of the United States. They want to expand the definition--it is a specific term, waters of the United States--to now include ditches and other dry areas where water does flow, but only flows during a short duration, basically after a rainfall. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States. So this is an expansion of the way we view waters of the United States. This proposed rule does and will have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses needing to put a shovel into the ground to make a living. The rule, in a sense, amounts to a user's fee for farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. It forces suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to use their backyards after a storm. To me this is one of the worst things we could ever do to Americans, let alone during this poor economy. That is why the Protecting Water and Private Property Rights Act is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business and by the American Land Rights Association. They have endorsed this amendment because they know how devastating the rule is to farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and even to homeowners. This administration claims it is providing flexibility for farmers and ranchers in the proposed rule, but farmers and ranchers across the country who read this are not deceived. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, released a statement on June 11 of this year stating that ``the rule would micro- manage farming via newly-mandated procedures for fencing, spraying, weeding and more. Permitting meanwhile, could delay time-sensitive tasks for months, potentially ruining crops in the process.'' According to the June edition of the publication National Cattleman in an article entitled ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS,'' waters of the United States, the article states: ``Although agriculture exemptions are briefly included, they don't come close to meeting the needs of cattlemen and women across the country.'' The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bob McCan, stated in an article: For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have standing water, under this rule, could potentially be affected. We'd now need permission to travel and move cattle across these types of areas. The article lists some of the major areas of agriculture which are not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule. The article states: Activities not covered by the exemptions include introduction of new cultivation techniques, planting different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture to crops, changing cropland to orchard/vineyard and changing cropland to nurseries. Those activities are not included. The rule also provides no flexibility for investments by small businesses across the country. According to the National Federation of Independent Business: Unfortunately, despite claims by the Agencies, the proposed rule will only increase uncertainty. The proposed rule still requires the Agencies to determine on a case-by-case basis whether many common land formations fall under federal jurisdiction. Often, this determination does not occur until after substantial investments and planning by a small business have taken place--thus chilling investment and expansion. Small businesses cannot be speculative with their resources and capital. Private property owners would also face no flexibility. My own constituent, Mr. Andy Johnson, Uinta County, WY, has been threatened by the EPA with penalties calculated to reach an estimated $187,000 a day for building what he believes is a stock pond on his property. In a month's time, he could be liable for more than $5 million in penalties. What are homeowners to do when faced with this kind of threat? They could choose to fight city hall with limited resources or give in to strong-arming by the Federal Government. Given the Agency's plans to expand the jurisdictional limits of the Clean Water Act, the EPA could easily use the proposed rule to bankrupt small landowners for something as simple as building a pond or a ditch anywhere near a wetland or stream. Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act to be used this way. To me it defies logic to think this proposed rule will benefit anybody but bureaucrats in Washington who are far removed from the communities between the coasts. I think it is time for the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to keep out of the lives of our constituents' backyards, and it is time to do it by opposing the proposed rule. I wish to end with a broader point about how the Senate operates these days. Today the Washington Post had an editorial specifically about the legislation, and it is entitled ``Clear rules for clean water,'' which is the proposal I have here today. The editorial board of the Washington Post writes: ``If lawmakers don't like the call the EPA is making''--and I don't like the call the EPA is making--``they should clarify the terminology themselves.'' In an ideal world, I agree with them. If we don't like something, we should be able to propose a better idea and then we should be allowed to vote on it in the Senate. The reality is the majority leader, Senator Reid, has essentially shut down the Senate and refuses to allow us to vote on new ideas that would actually solve challenges such as this one. In fact, Republicans and Democrats have proposed hundreds and hundreds of amendments, and we have only been able to vote on a very small number of those--and very select ones at that. The truth is the majority leader, Harry Reid, refuses to allow any votes on almost any amendment and is enforcing a gag order on real debate, discussion and, most importantly, on votes. He has imposed a gag order on important issues that impact the lives of all Americans. To prove my point, I put together a chart. I wish to take a moment to review the voting record over the past full year in this body. This calendar has the headline ``Reid Blocks Votes.'' The Republican votes are in red. We have the last full year of calendar months, and July is down here as the 13th month because we started last year on July 1. The red Xs are days when there were votes on Republican amendments, and votes on Democratic amendments are in blue. Over the past 12 months--from July of 2013 to July of 2014--Majority Leader Reid has allowed Republicans to vote on their amendments a total of 8 days--8 days out of the entire 12 months there have been votes on Republican amendments. There have been a total of 11 amendments which Republicans have had a chance to offer and have votes on even though we have introduced hundreds of amendments. It is interesting. Harry Reid has actually been tougher on his own party. The Democrats have been more restricted and more limited. If you look at this calendar, you will see the days in blue. Harry Reid has only allowed Democrats to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 days over this past year that Democrats have had votes on their own amendments on the floor of the Senate. Over that time Democrats have proposed hundreds and hundreds--over 500--of amendments, and there have only been 7 Democratic amendments over the course of 5 days that have had a vote. Democrats have not had a vote on an amendment proposed by a Democratic Senator since March 27. It has been 103 days and counting since the Democrats have had an amendment that one of them has proposed and offered here in the Senate for a vote. It is so interesting because as I look at the Presiding Officer--of the Democrats newly elected to the Senate in 2012, Members of the Presiding Officer's entire class have not had a single rollcall vote on one of their own amendments on the floor of the Senate--ever. It is an astonishing display of what the majority leader has done to muzzle an entire legislative body of both parties. I will tell the Presiding Officer I think it is an embarrassing record. It is an embarrassing record for the majority leader, and I think it is an embarrassing record for the Democrats--who control the Senate--to tolerate. I think it is important for Americans to pay close attention to not just what Senators say when they go home, but actually what happens and what they do and what they stand for and what they vote on. So I would say the next time Democrats go home and tell their constituents they are introducing legislation to solve a problem, the constituents ought to ask, when? When is the vote? That is what I want to know. When is the vote? When is the vote, Mr. President? When is the vote, Senate Democrats? When is the vote, Majority Leader Reid? When is the vote? As usual, when the question is asked, silence. That is all we get in return. So I actually believe we have a majority of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who would actually vote to pass my amendment. This amendment I have to this bill on the floor--a majority of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, bipartisan, would vote to pass this amendment to stop the EPA's extreme takeover of waters across America. But under Senator Reid's command-and-control style of leadership, I don't think we will ever know. I don't think we will have that vote, and I think Senator Reid will block it. So I would say that if my colleagues agree with the editorial board of the Washington Post, ``Clear rules for clean water''--today's Washington Post editorial--then they should be able to stand and be counted. Democrats should demand it. In the recent history of the United States, if that history is any indication, as we can see by this embarrassing vote calendar, I am not at all confident that this body will ever be given the opportunity to stand and be counted, and the reason is because Majority Leader Reid won't allow Republicans or Democrats to vote on my amendment or hardly anyone else's amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.