John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor today because it seems day after day there is another story or two in the paper about what is happening with the President's health care law. As I go home to Wyoming each week, I go through Denver and the airport there. Today the headline in the Denver Post has to do with the Colorado health exchanges. The first line says: ``Colorado's health care exchange is expecting nearly twice as many people to drop or to decline to pay for their policies.'' You know, they predicted how many people would continue to make payments if they had signed up under the President's health care law. Today they are predicting that twice as many as they anticipated would be either dropping or failing to pay for their health care premiums. The Wall Street Journal today, above the fold, front page, ``Newly Insured Face Coverage Gaps.'' So you get people who may have signed up under the President's health care law, coverage gaps, not paying, dropping, truly not the deal the President has said was something he felt would be helpful to Americans. More and more people are finding out they are having bigger problems under the President's health care law, problems with the promises that were made by this President, by this administration, and by those who voted for the health care law. I get home just about every weekend in Wyoming to talk with people, to listen to them, to hear what they have to say. But also as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, one of my responsibilities is also to see how policies such as the President's health care law come out across the country, what happens in other States, how policies out of Washington affect people all across America. Today I wish to talk a little about how the health care law is impacting people not just in my home State of Wyoming but all across the country. In addition to being in Wyoming last week, I had a chance to visit Alaska. What I heard from people there as well as people in Wyoming is that people have been hurt by the President's health care law. They are anxious about it in terms of their own health care, and they are angry about insurance they have had that they have lost, and the implications of the President's health care law where many promises were made and now people are finding out the President's promises, in terms of their own lives, their own health and their own families, have not actually been kept. The President, Democrats here in the Senate, promised their law was going to be great for the American people. That is the promise. Well, I can tell you the people I talk to in Wyoming, people I heard from in Alaska, are very worried about the terrible side effects they are feeling specifically as a result of this awful health care law. Small businesses--and small businesses are a major part of the economy in rural States. Small businesses and the people who specifically work in those small businesses are the backbone of the economy for so many of our communities. So it is very troubling when I read about something in the health care law that threatens the very health of the people who work in these small businesses. When Democrats were trying to sell their health care law, they bragged. They bragged about something called the SHOP program. That is the exchange where small businesses in a State were supposed to be able to buy insurance for their workers, to be able to shop for it, be able to get something that is affordable. That is the promise made by Democrats who voted for this health care law. Democrats actually gave speeches on the floor about small businesses being able to find affordable insurance. This program was supposed to open last year, but just like the failed exchanges the President set up, when the exchanges opened October 1, this was not ready to go. So what the Obama administration did is they said: We will delay it for a year, because the program was not ready. So they left all of the businesses kind of in a lurch. Now they say it might be ready this fall. Well, time will tell. Here is what the Wall Street Journal found in an article last month, June 10. They ran a headline that said, ``Some small business employees to have only one health plan choice: 18 states will offer only one plan when small-business exchanges open.'' The Democrats promised a lot more than that. Those who voted for that promised a lot more. Those who gave speeches promised a lot more. But in 18 States, there will be only one plan when they finally get it open, 18 States where workers and small businesses will not have any choice among insurance plans and no competition, and Alaska is one of them. Less choice, less competition, and of course that means higher premiums. People all across the country are experiencing higher premiums. That is the thing that causes so much anger and anxiety among families all across the country. When that letter comes--and the newspaper stories are already starting to get out there, as well as television, radio, reading about it on the Internet--the question is: How much higher? The President promised $2,500 lower premiums. Nobody believes that. Nobody in America believes the President of the United States and the promise he made. It is a sad situation when the President is not believed by anyone. But yet that is what we have. He made a promise: $2,500 per family lower. People all know that prices are going higher. The question is: How much higher? This is what an article said in the Alaska Dispatch: ``Alaska's small businesses feel pinch of rising health care costs.'' The article tells a story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. He is paying about $5,000 a month more than he paid last year for his share of his workers' insurance. That is about a 40-percent increase over last year--40 percent. The President said it was going to go down. This is a 40-percent increase. This small business owner in Alaska says the costs are ``crippling'' and he said it is like meeting another payroll every month. This small business owner says: It's killing me. I just don't know how long we can keep absorbing these costs. Those costs are a devastating side effect of the health care law. Democrats voted for it. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for that. There was a story on television up there, channel 13, a television station in Anchorage, KYUR. They aired a story last month about Linda Peters. She is another local business owner. She had 14 employees. She pays for the health insurance for her employees. Her share of the premium has gone up, gone up from $600 per person 2 years ago to $950 today. She says it has gotten so expensive that she has had to shift the cost of employees' dependents back to her workers. So she was providing insurance for the dependents of the employees, but now she is not able to do that. Why? Because of the President's health care law. She told the TV station, ``It was really tragic, it's enraging in fact, as employers who care about our employees. `` Tragic and enraging. But the President forced this on her and every Democrat in this body, every Democratic Senator who voted for this. This woman in Alaska: Tragic and enraging. She is looking into dropping insurance coverage altogether. She pays her employees well so they will not get a subsidy in the State exchange. So here is a small business owner who can speak personally about the expensive, the tragic, and the enraging side effects of the Obama health care law on her employees. Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next and how much rates might continue to go up. Of course, that makes it even worse. The business owner said: I just can't penalize my employees by dropping the plan, and I can't figure out: Where am I going to get the money? It's frightening. What happens next year? That is a big concern, what happens next year. People worry about next year. They budget for next year. They plan for next year. They think about their expenses, balancing it with their income. President Obama says: The Democrats who voted for this law--in the President's own words--should forcefully defend and be proud--should forcefully defend and be proud--of the health care law. Are Democrats in this Senate who voted for this health care law proud? Are they proud of what the law is doing to these people in Alaska and other States? Are Democrats willing to come to this floor and forcefully defend and be proud of the extra stress, the extra costs they are causing for these people all across the country? According to a recent study by the Manhattan Institute, people in Alaska are paying a hospital more for their coverage. They found the premiums of the average 64-year-old woman in Alaska would have been $693 a month in 2013. That is before they were forced onto the ObamaCare exchange. But in 2014, buying insurance from the exchange, her premiums jumped to $813 a month. She is paying $1,400 more this year than she did last year because of the specifics of the health care law. For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $130 a month in 2013. But under the health care law and the exchange, he now pays $284 a month. That is more than double. That is an extra $1,800 more this year than it was last year. Is there a Senator in this body who will come to the floor and forcefully defend the fact that there are these people all across America who are paying twice as much for insurance because of the health care law? Democrats did not solve the problem with our health care system. They just mandated coverage, and mandated more expensive coverage. They made it more expensive and they have more mandates. People wanted reform that gave them access to quality affordable care, not more expensive coverage. Republicans have offered solutions, solutions for patient-centered care, for patient-centered health care reform. We have talked about things such as increasing the ability of small businesses to be able to join together and negotiate better rates, about expanding health savings accounts, and allowing people to shop for and buy health insurance in other States that work best for them and for their families. In 18 States, including Alaska, the small business exchange will offer just one choice for insurance. Shopping in other States could increase competition and help lower premiums for people who work for those small businesses. That would have been a simple solution that works and helps people actually afford coverage and care. It is not what Democrats did with their health care law, but it is what Republicans are offering. We have suggested ideas to get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not higher costs with a subsidy for some people, but actually lowering the cost for everyone. 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 tragic side effects. I am sure that tomorrow there will be another headline and another one the day after that of people who have been harmed by the health care law as we see more and more and hear from more and more Americans who feel the President has not kept his promises, that the Democrats who voted for the health care law have failed the American people and have failed to answer the concerns of the American people, which was affordable quality care. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join my colleague from South Dakota and agree with what he is seeing in South Dakota and I am seeing in Wyoming and that people all across the country are seeing with regard to the President's health care law. People are very concerned because it hits them in their pocketbook. What we are seeing is that people's premiums are going up. The deductible that they have to pay before they get to use their insurance is going way up. The copay that they have to make has gone way up. So in terms of people's actual pocketbook issues and the things that concern them, they are paying more and getting less, and it is because of the mandates in the Obama health care law. The President of the United States says: ``Forcefully defend and be proud'' of this law. Yet day after day, I don't see Democrats who voted for the health care law coming to the floor to forcefully defend or be proud of it. And there is very little to be proud of. We all get letters from people in our home States. I was home over the Fourth of July visiting around the State, going to many communities. I haven't run into anyone who says this has actually significantly helped make their life better. People have come up to me at parade routes, rodeos--all the different places we have been--and they have great concerns about the health care law and the impact on their own personal life, what money is left over at the end of the day to help put food on the table, to get the kids off to school, clothing for the kids, and how the impact of the health care law is making it harder and lowering the quality of life in spite of the President's promises, which they say are just not true. I got a letter from a young woman, Shelly in Worland, WY, in Washakie County, in the center of the State. I know the community very well. She writes to me: I know you have heard my story a hundred times, but I feel maybe one more won't hurt. She wanted to share what is going on in her specific life in Wyoming related to the health care law. Yesterday in the mail I received a notice that my . . . health insurance will go from $637 to $897, and my $10,000 deductible is now $11,000. So her premiums have gone up and the deductible has gone up. It is a double whammy hitting her. But, she says: My plan now meets the requirements of the health care reform law. And let's be serious about this. The requirements of the health care law mandate that many people all across the country end up buying much more insurance than they ever will need, ever will want, and will ever use. But it has to comply with what the Federal Government says they need. The families of Wyoming have a better idea of what they need for their health insurance than Barack Obama has in terms of what he thinks they might need. The families of Wyoming know what they need much more so than the Democrats in this body who voted the mandates onto these people and said they have to have all of this insurance. This woman doesn't need it, doesn't want it, and is not going to use it. Yet she is paying more out of her pocket, impacting that family's life so it can comply with the health care law instead of what is best for her and her family. She goes on to say: My husband is self employed on the family farm, and I am also self employed at a beauty shop. Needless to say we have always pinched our pennies. My children are all grown, my two daughters are both kindergarten teachers in our wonderful state, and my son is working with us on the farm. We have worked very hard not to use any of the government assistance raising our children on less than $30,000 a year. We are talking about hardworking families from all across the country pinching their pennies, making sure that they use their money wisely, not relying on the government. That is what we have here. So now I am forced to enter the health care reform circus. That is what this is. This is a circus forced down the throats of the American people by the Democrats in this body and by the President of the United States who forced this onto the American people, this health care reform circus. I know I missed the deadline because I was determined to not be a part of this, but now I simply cannot afford this insurance. I tried to navigate the website last night and finally gave up after being kicked off three times. To make matters worse my insurance was offering one decreasing deductible that we were counting on. We also lost that in our new policy. We had our deductible down to 3,000. We have been saving in an HA, but I'm afraid it won't last long. I have just been told I have a rare bone disease called fibrous dysplasia. It is causing some eye issues, and I am facing some sort of surgery to remove the diseased bone behind my eye. This hardworking Wyoming family: After working so hard to take care of ourselves my husband and I are faced with having to have help. This makes no sense to us. We were doing fine until the government stepped in. There has to be an answer somewhere. Thanks for your time. I practiced medicine for 25 years in Wyoming and took care of many families just like we have here with Shelly, knowing how hardworking people are--and the Presiding Officer knows that as well--in rural communities, people who roll up their sleeves, go to work every day, and don't want assistance from the government. They just do their job. And this is a family that has been hurt by the President's health care law--hurt dramatically. They had gotten their deductible down to $3,000, and now it is up to $11,000. Their premiums are higher than they were before, and she has a lot more insurance than she is ever going to want, need, can afford or will ever use. But we are seeing this all around the country. It is not just in stories from Wyoming. CBS Money Watch in the middle of June came out with a report called ``For some, Obamacare delivers sticker shock.'' It is interesting, just trying to follow the press from around the country. These aren't isolated cases. We are seeing this all across the country. The article goes on: . . . Obamacare is delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock. What did the President of the United States promise the American people? He promised the American people that under his plan insurance premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first term--not stay flat, not go up a little--would actually go lower $2,500 per family per year by the end of his first term. ``Obamacare is delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock.'' Now, who is getting hurt by this? All Americans are getting hurt, but the Washington Post had an interesting story on June 24. I wish the President would pay attention to this. The President of the United States needs to know that it is ``Older women who bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare''--the headline in the Washington Post June 24. The new government report is out: . . . women age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange. These women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care Act. Winners and losers--and President Obama has chosen older women to bear the brunt of higher increased insurance costs under the President health care law. We are going to hear that again and again as Democrats stand up to talk about the issues facing our country. It is older women who are bearing the brunt of the higher insurance costs under the President's health care law, as reported in the Washington Post. Then, how incompetent is the Web site? Let's take a look at what the New York Times said July 1: ``Eligibility for Health Insurance Was Not Properly Checked, Audit Finds.'' An independent audit of insurance exchanges established under the health care law has found that federal and state officials did not properly check the eligibility of people seeking coverage and applying for subsidies, the latest indication of unresolved problems at HealthCare.gov. I remember listening to President Obama talk and be interviewed by President Clinton in September of last year in New York City at the Clinton Global Initiative, or something like that. President Obama said: Easier than shopping on Amazon. Cheaper than your cell phone bill. This is in a report to Congress on Tuesday: In a report to Congress on Tuesday, the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services . . . said that the exchanges . . . did not have adequate safeguards ``to prevent the use of inaccurate or fraudulent information when determining eligibility.'' Moreover, in a companion report, the inspector general said that the government had been unable to verify much of the information reported by people applying for insurance coverage and financial assistance to help pay premiums. We are talking about the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services of the Obama administration. ``As of the first quarter of 2014,'' [the Inspector General] said, ``the federal marketplace was unable to resolve about 2.6 million of 2.9 million inconsistencies''-- --because the Web site that President Obama has said would be easier to use than Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone was not fully operational. What kind of government incompetence are we talking about? The Associated Press on July 1: ``Health law sign-ups dogged by data flaws.'' Unable to resolve 2.6 million so-called inconsistencies--it is astonishing. And they call it ``another health care headache for the White House.'' The problems continue out of sight. The President is trying to hide these problems--trying to hide them from the American people. The President says one thing, tries to sell a story. The President now has his own war room set up--not to solve the problems. Oh, no. He is not trying to solve the problems. He has a war room to try to spin the information so the voters don't get to see what they are not being deceived by. They can see through this. You have a war room with six people trying to spin the health care numbers rather than trying to solve the problems, trying to lower the cost of care, trying to help patients get care--not empty coverage and expensive coverage. There are so many problems in the world, and what the White House has decided to spend its time and money on is set up a war room to try to spin the issues of the Obama health care law, not to solve the problems. Go around the country, State by State. California: ObamaCare massive backlog stalls medical expansion. Connecticut: Anthem seeks 12.5 percent rate increase. Back to California: Confusion over doctor list is costly for ObamaCare enrollees in the State. You can work your way around the country, and State by State, whether you do it from east to west, north to south, do it in alphabetical order, in every State there are horror stories about the impact of this health care law. Connecticut again: ObamaCare glitch leading to canceled policies. Constituents calling to talk to their State representatives say their insurance policies have been canceled because the subsidies that helped discount the premiums hadn't been paid--hadn't been paid. According to people involved with the insurance companies, the issue of mistaken policy cancellation ``is real.'' So the insurance companies are saying it is absolutely true, it is absolutely real. I see other colleagues on the floor. I would say that in Colorado, a State that I go through every weekend at least twice going to Wyoming and coming back to DC from Wyoming, people in Colorado are very concerned. ``Colorado health exchange site needs surgery.'' This is NBC 9 News, Colorado. A reporter said: I'm not going to sugar-coat this: The official state website where Coloradans can shop for health insurance is a mess. Sure [the web site] looks pretty slick at first glance. It lets you window shop for plans and offers some (but not all) good info about the health care law. But when you actually create an account and start shopping, the site offers an experience that is clunky, counter-intuitive, and often confusing. That sounds to me like the Obama administration--clunky, counterintuitive, and often confusing. That's the web product being offered to Coloradans after receiving more than $179 million in federal grants to develop the state exchange. This reporter says: If you are looking for a passionate argument of the pros and cons of [ObamaCare], as a reporter I avoid making public policy arguments. However, if this is the official system the people of Colorado are getting to shop for individual coverage, it should be a good one. Nine months after it began selling health plans, this website is not a good one. It should be upsetting to everyone in the state of Colorado, especially supporters of the healthcare law. I would apply that to anyone from Colorado who is on this Senate floor or in the House of Representatives who voted for the health care law. He said: It should be upsetting to everyone in the state, especially supporters of the healthcare law. My family obtained a health plan despite the website. By way of background, I am not remotely anti-technology. I grew up in Silicon Valley. I built my own computers as a kid. I once had a job working in tech support for [a dot-com company], a sophisticated e-commerce platform . . . My goal in this review is to shine a light on some really basic (and deeply frustrating) problems that any commercial dot-com would be pulling all-nighters to fix. Well, that shows you the difference between a commercial dot-com and the government of the United States. It says: For some reason, these issues have been allowed to hang around for the better part of a year by the Connect for Health Colorado. And then today, the Denver Post: ``Colorado exchange expects more to drop health coverage''--giving up, not paying their premiums, not renewing their coverage. They are expecting double what was initially anticipated of the number of people who aren't paying their premiums. They realize this empty coverage they are paying a lot of money for isn't actually good for them. They are paying too much in premiums. Their deductibles are high, their copays are high. I can go on and on. The people of America know what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted to be able to get care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. That is not what they got from President Obama's health care law that the Democrats in this body voted for. What they got are higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles, maybe cannot keep their doctor, cannot keep their hospital--not what the President promised, not what people wanted, and it is time to go back and start over to work on a health care system that gives the American people what they truly want, truly need, and deserve. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. I concur with the distinguished Senator from Texas and the concerns that we have and we share about the lives of people all across the country and their ability to earn a living. Tomorrow President Obama is planning to travel to Minnesota. So as I come to the floor the President is making the preparations because the President said he will spend the day in the shoes of a woman who had written a letter about the economic challenges she faces. I hope the President takes the time to actually talk to other people as well and spend a day in their shoes as well, because I think there are a lot of people in Minnesota--a lot of people in Minnesota--who would like to ask the President about his health care law and about some of the damaging side effects of the law. The Mankato Times had a story from Minnesota schools to lose more than $200 million because of ObamaCare. A State representative is quoted as saying that wasteful spending on the health care law has left many taxpayers outraged because they will soon be making a significant impact on Minnesota schools, on the students in the State of Minnesota. Will the President address that? According to documents released by Minnesota's Management and Budget Office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with the health care law compliance will cost school districts statewide at least $207 million. As the State representative said: This is troubling news for our schools. This is $200 million that school districts won't be able to use to hire more teachers to improve their educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does absolutely nothing for our students. As the Minnesota State representative says: ``It is pretty sad when schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our children.'' The President says the health care law should be forcefully defended and be proud of. Is that something the President is going to forcefully defend and be proud of? You take a look at the side effects of the health care law, so many side effects of the health care law. One of the side effects is the medical device tax that Democrats included in the law. It is a destructive tax and is hitting the people on the ground in Minnesota where the President is going to be tomorrow. This destructive tax impacts the livelihood of individuals. These are the folks who work to make things such as pacemakers, artificial joints, ultrasound equipment. It is a tax the President asked for, the President demanded and wanted as part of the health care law, and that every Democratic Senator in this Chamber voted for, including the two Democratic Senators from Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. It adds up to $3 billion a year. Companies will have to make up for that lost revenue. They are going to do it through higher prices on other individuals and moving some of their construction and their distribution overseas. Is that what the President wanted in this health care law? Will he forcefully defend and be proud of that? According to a survey by an industry trade group about this--the folks who actually make these medical devices--that is exactly what is happening. Device manufacturers have had to cut 14,000 jobs because of the tax last year. They say they didn't hire another 19,000 they planned to hire. That is a total of 33,000 American jobs lost because of the taxes in the President's health care law. Now there are more than 350 medical device firms in Minnesota, companies in Minnesota that employ people on the ground in Minnesota, citizens who want to be hard- working individuals, supporting more than 30,000 jobs in Minnesota. Since the health care law passed, the medical device industry has lost more than 1,000 of those jobs in Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. Is the President ready to stand with those individuals about the devastating side effects of his health care law? One of the biggest device makers in the state is called Medtronix. They announced they are moving their headquarters to Ireland. That is not only because of the President's health care law and not every job lost in the industry is due solely to this one tax, but the Obama administration's burdensome tax policies and this terrible health care law side effects are impacting people all around the country and specifically in this area in Minnesota. One of the side effects is fewer jobs for American families. The President has said that Democrats who voted for the law should forcefully defend and be proud of it. I hope someone in Minnesota will get the chance to ask the President tomorrow if he is proud of the thousands of jobs his health care law is costing the hard-working men and women who make these medical devices in this State of Minnesota. I hope the President will spend a day in the shoes of someone who lost their job as a medical device maker. A lot of people in Minnesota and around the country are also worried about another devastating side effect of the health care law, and that is the impact on their paychecks--smaller paychecks that a lot of families are getting specifically because of the health care law. Yesterday there was an article in the Washington Post, page 2, Tuesday, June 24th: ``Businesses gear up for employer mandate.'' Subheadline: ``Some cut workers' hours; others struggle with costs, logistics.'' Well, what happens if you cut hours? What happens if you are struggling with costs? Who is impacted by that? Obviously, the families of the individuals who are working in those businesses. The article says employers around the country have been cutting their workers' hours back to part-time status. Part time in the health care law is defined as 30 hours a week. Most people think of a 40-hour workweek. Not President Obama. He has a different view of what a full-time job is. They had to cut back to part-time status in order to avoid paying for the expensive health care mandates required by the law. The article in the Washington Post yesterday adds that ``seasonal employees and low wage workers such as adjunct professors, cafeteria staffers'' have been especially hard hit. It is happening in Minnesota. The President is going to be there tomorrow, and he is going to say, ``I want to walk a day with this woman and see what her life is like.'' He can hand-select somebody who makes it look as though his policies might be working, but there are people in Minnesota who are being harmed by the President's policy. In Faribault, MN, the city is to cut hours of workers because it cannot afford to pay for their insurance. The city of Mankato, MN, had to do the same, cutting most of their workers to 29 hours a week to keep under the limits set by the health care law. In Hastings, MN, the schools have to limit how much their classroom aides, food service, and transportation employees can work. The same thing is happening in towns and counties and businesses all over the State of Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. They are cutting back hours, reducing the size of their paychecks, and why? Because of the health care law. Is the President going to spend a day in the shoes of someone who has had their hours cut back because of the health care law? Is he going to forcefully defend his law to those people when he is in Minnesota tomorrow? Are the two Senators from Minnesota who voted for the health care law ready to forcefully defend the smaller paychecks these people are getting? This isn't just happening in Minnesota, it is happening all around the country. You know, it is not bad enough that these people are getting hit a second time by another very expensive side effect of the health care law--smaller paychecks. Now what they are seeing is higher premiums they have to pay. According to a new study, people in Minnesota are paying a lot more for health insurance. Why? Because of the health care law. For an average 64-year-old woman in Minnesota, premiums would have been $273 a month in 2013 before the mandates in the Obama health care law kicked in. But in 2014, buying insurance through an ObamaCare exchange, her premiums jumped to over $400 a month. She is paying $1,500 more this year than she did last year because of the President's health care law. Who is going to forcefully defend that? Who is going to come and be proud on the floor of the Senate and speak with great pride about what they have done to this woman and the effect of this health care law in her life? For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $95 a month in 2013. Under the ObamaCare law, he is paying $140 a month--an extra $540 this year compared to last year. Can the Senators who voted for this law be proud of these kinds of premium increases? The American people wanted reform that gave them access to quality affordable care--access, quality, affordable. What they are getting is higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles. Republicans have offered solutions for patient-centered health care, measures such as increasing the ability of small businesses to get together and negotiate better rates, expanding health savings accounts, allowing people to buy health insurance that works for them and their families because they know what is best for them and they don't need the government and President Obama to tell them that he knows better what they need in their lives than they know what they need in their lives. Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. The President may not want to talk about any of these tomorrow in Minnesota, all the ways his health care law is hurting people in Minnesota and around the country, hurting education, hurting jobs, hurting the economy and hurting the pocketbooks of men and women around the country. But Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor, keep talking about the burdensome side effects, the expensive side effects, and sometimes the irreversible and sometimes fatal side effects as a result of this health care law. And we will continue to offer real solutions for better health care without the terrible side effects that the American public continues to face as a result of the President's health care law. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the former Governor of North Dakota, now the Senator from North Dakota, who knows these issues very well. And I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, who talked about the administration's overreach and overregulations and the impact it has on the economy of the United States. There is very disturbing news out this morning reported by Reuters. The headline: ``Bad to worse: US economy shrank more than expected in Q1 [of this year].'' U.S. economy shrank more than expected in Q1 of this year. The U.S. economy contracted, not grew, not stayed the same but contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter. The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that gross domestic product fell at a 2.9-percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in 5 years--worst performance in 5 years. It is because of the overreach, the overregulation that is coming out of this administration. That is why I rise in support with my colleagues and my colleagues who have very serious concerns about the EPA's proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule. Many if not all of these colleagues recently joined me in introducing the Protecting Water and Property Rights of 2014 Act. In fact, 34 Senators have cosponsored this bill. More continue to join the important effort. They have joined this effort because this important and consequential legislation restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this EPA, which the EPA is trying to use to encompass all wet areas of farms, of ranches, suburban homes all across America. More specifically, this bill eliminates the administration's proposed rule to implement the expansion of such Federal authority. Through this recently proposed rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definitions of waters of the United States. They want to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a short duration after a rainfall, but the government wants to control even that. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States, but this proposed rule does. It will have a huge impact on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. The rule amounts to a Federal user fee for farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. It forces suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and Army Corps to use their backyards after a storm. Let's be clear what is proposed in this rule. It takes money away from family farmers and ranchers who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, and it taxes suburban middle-class families who just want to recreate in their own backyard without Uncle Sam bankrupting them for the privilege. This is the worst thing I think we can do to Americans in this economy, an economy, as I say, that is shrinking--a shrinking economy, not just stagnant, not just sitting there but actually shrinking. That is why my legislation is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, as well as the American Land Rights Association. It is because they know how devastating this rule is to farmers, to ranchers, to homeowners, and to other small businesses. Despite what this administration may say and has said about providing ``flexibility''--they use that word--for farmers and ranchers in the proposed rule, the farmers and ranchers of America are not deceived. They will not be misled by this administration. According to the June edition of the publication National Cattlemen, an article entitled: ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS''--waters of the United States. Let me point out that the National Cattlemen--it is the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, and the official publication of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. What that front page article says is: Although agriculture exemptions are briefly included, they do not come close-- Do not come close-- to meeting the needs of the cattlemen and women across the country. The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, McCan, stated in the article: For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have standing water, under this rule could potentially be affected. We now need permission to travel and move cattle across these types of areas. The article lists some other major areas of agriculture not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule: 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 orchards and to vineyards and changing crop land to nurseries. Congress never intended the Clean Water Act to be used this way. The Senate, under Democratic control, never brought legislation such as the Clean Water Restoration Act to the floor that would have removed the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Act. Why? Because they knew it would have been defeated. In fact, 52 bipartisan Members, a bipartisan group, a majority of the Senators voted for the Barrasso amendment that rejected the EPA's proposed guidance to seize all State waters during the Water Resources Development Act. Yet this proposed rule by the administration is circumventing Congress by effectively writing ``navigable'' out of the Clean Water Act. Just as troubling as ignoring Congressional intent, the proposed rule disregards the fundamental tenet embodied in two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are decisions that limit Federal jurisdiction. It is particularly troubling that the proposed rule allows the Army Corps and EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction. This unprecedented exercise of power will allow the EPA to trump States rights and wipe out the authority of State and local governments to meet local land and water use decisions. It is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence--no evidence at all--that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the Clean Water Act Federal Regulatory Program. Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the Clean Water Act's mandates and the cost of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer delays in actually getting the permits. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in 50 States, cost thousands of American jobs. Farming and ranching, commercial and residential real estate development, electric transmission, transportation projects, bridge repairs, energy development, and mining will all be negatively affected. This is at a time when the United States has seen our economy shrink. The Reuters story today talks about shrinkage much more than predicted previously. Regulations such as this continue to damage America, damage our country, damage our families, damage our communities, damage the hard-working men and woman who want to go to work, put food on the table for their kids, raise their families, and go to work, but yet we have an administration that does not seem to see, is blinded by a role of big government. They are blinded from seeing the impact these onerous, expensive, burdensome regulations are having on the American public and certainly on our economy, as pointed out today in this news release from Reuters about the shrinking of the American economy.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor today with the ranking member of the Senate energy committee to discuss the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline. I turn to my colleague from Alaska to invite her to share with the Senate some of her observations, considerations, and concerns as we seek approval of an opportunity to create more jobs in America and improve our economy, as well as energy security for our country. I turn to the Senator from Alaska and ask her concerns, comments, and solutions that she may have regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. I agree, Mr. President. Just think about what happened last week. Extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist group, attacked the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This terrorist group was actually kicked out of Al Qaeda for being too extreme. It is a striking reminder to all of us--all of us in this Chamber and all of us in this Nation--how important it is for the United States to take swift action to increase energy production here in North America. Energy security is key. President Obama essentially conceded the point last week during a press conference when he announced he was sending troops back into Iraq. He was asked what Iraq's civil war is in terms of national security interests to the United States, and he gave a couple of reasons: Obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continue to be important. Despite the urgency, the President refuses to take steps to reduce the effect that Iraq's oil can have on American national security in the future. The President admits energy is a national security interest but he refuses to do anything about it that is meaningful. What do the President and the administration think should happen? The President was asked a week or so ago, as a result of a huge spike in oil prices per barrel of oil as a result of what was happening with ISIS in the Middle East: What about all of this? He said he was concerned, but he said: The gulf should pick up the slack and produce more oil. Not North America, not the United States. The gulf. He was talking about the Persian Gulf should pick up the slack. Vice President Biden put out a plan last week to support energy production--but not in the United States, in the Caribbean. America shouldn't be asking for more energy from the Caribbean or the Persian Gulf. We should be producing more energy on our own, in our own gulf coast, offshore, on Federal lands, in Alaska. That is why last week the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The bill passed the committee. The ranking member said there was bipartisan support. Even Democrats voted for it. That bill would send oil from Canada into States such as North Dakota. The Senator from North Dakota is here on the floor. It will send oil from Canada and North Dakota to refiners in Texas and Louisiana. Last week Democrats in the committee voted for this bill and talked about how important it is. The Keystone XL Pipeline application has been pending for more than 5 years. The State Department has done five environmental reviews of the project. All five have found the Keystone XL Pipeline will cause no significant environmental impact. We should not delay this project any longer. Democrats should push their party leaders to vote on this bill. I am disappointed--I know my colleagues are--that Senate Democrats up to this point have chosen to block this important bill. I think it is outrageous the way a small group of Democrats refuse even to consider having a debate on this vital measure--energy security for our country, energy at home. America needs the jobs. We need the energy. According to the U.S. State Department, this bill would support thousands and thousands of jobs. Energy is a national security issue for the United States, and this bill would help produce energy here in North America--not what the President said, where they will pick up the slack in the Persian Gulf. The bill is on the calendar right now. The Democratic majority leader can bring it up for a vote, and we are going to ask him to do so today. The Chair of the Energy Committee should call on the majority leader and demand that he act on the bill. We are here in the Senate and we get elected to the Senate to vote. The Keystone XL Pipeline is important. This bill is important. Democrats who want to vote against it can make their arguments and cast their vote. So I turn to my friend and colleague, the Senator from North Dakota-- a Senator who has been an incredible leader, a former Governor of his State, a Senator who knows the issue well, who knows the value of American energy--U.S. energy, North American energy--the impact on jobs, the impact on the economy, the impact of energy as a geopolitical weapon in what is happening around the world. I ask my friend and colleague from North Dakota if he thinks there is any reason whatsoever to delay action on this bill or if we should move ahead. I see the Senator from Oklahoma has also joined us. So there are obviously significant and growing voices coming to the floor to say it is time to vote now, not additional delay, not additional studies, not additional talk. It is time to vote. I turn to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, the former Governor of North Dakota--I think the longest serving Governor in the history of the State--for his impression of why it is time to vote today.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor because for those folks who picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning, this was the headline regarding the health care law: June 19, 2014, ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise Rates.'' The picture emerging from proposed 2015 insurance rates in the 10 States that have completed their filings, as the States have to do-- stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, in all but one of those 10, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent for next year. That is not what the President of the United States promised the American people when he forced through a health care law with only Democrats voting for it in the House and in the Senate. What he said is that by the end of his first term, premiums for families would drop by $2,500 per family. That is not what we are seeing: Across the board, the largest insurer in each of those 10 States, anywhere between 8.5 percent to 22 percent for next year. It makes us wonder how that is going to sit with the American public when they are faced with these bills. Republicans have been coming to this floor to talk about the health care law that Democrats in the Senate voted for, the President signed, and we talked about the many alarming side effects--the alarming side effects Americans have been feeling ever since the law has passed. People are still trying to understand the law, and they are asking the question: How is this actually helping me? That is what people want to know, is how is the law helping them. Much of what they are hearing is not how it is helping them, but how it is hurting them. Once again, an alarming side effect in the front page of the newspaper this morning. It seems like just about every day we pick up a newspaper and see headlines about another broken promise by the Democrats who voted for the health care law--Democrats who came to the Senate floor and the floor of the House of Representatives and said this is a good thing. But then, of course, it was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. As more Americans are finding out what is in it, they continue to be very unhappy with what they are getting. American families all across the country are finding out that the President's promises didn't come true. They weren't true. As chairman of the Republican policy committee, I have been looking at the damaging side effects of the health care law around the country and in different States and what I have found meeting people around the country. Here is what I found in North Carolina: Last Friday there was a headline in the Triangle Business Journal in the Raleigh-Durham, NC, area on the Affordable Care Act: ``ACA forcing majority of [North Carolina] employers to change health care offerings.'' The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The headline in North Carolina is: The law is forcing a majority of employers to change their health care offerings. The article says: More than half of North Carolina companies are considering radical changes to the health plans they offer employees---- Not little changes, not little tweaks, radical changes to the health plans they offer employees. ``You might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look at what you are covering,'' Hegeman says. ``Or charging more in terms of co-pay, in order to keep premiums lower.'' It quotes one human resources executive says that companies `` . . . might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look at what you are covering. . . . '' Those are all considerations because the President made a lot of promises that are not being able to be kept, and people who actually read the law as it was being proposed knew the President's promises were not going to be able to be kept. This is a terrifying side effect of the health care law for many people--people who now in North Carolina are worried about these radical changes to their insurance plans. That is what some companies are going to have to do to keep down the costs. But for many people, the costs keep going up anyway, and we are seeing higher premiums in those 10 States I mentioned in the headlines today, but specifically in North Carolina, here is what WTVD, a television station in Raleigh, reported last month. They did a story entitled, ``Blue Cross missing age sales target for ACA could mean higher bills.'' So higher bills for North Carolina. It turns out not enough young and healthy people signed up for the insurance in the State's ObamaCare exchange. The President said: Oh, we will get all these young, healthy people signing up, buying insurance that--in my opinion--they don't need, don't want, can't afford, will never use. The President said: We will get all these healthy people signing up. It didn't happen. They missed the sales targets in terms of what they expected in terms of the age of those signing up. So the biggest insurer in the State in North Carolina says it may have to raise rates next year. The news story quoted a woman named Amanda LaRoque. She and her husband own their own business, they pay their own health insurance, and they say their premiums have doubled since they signed up for the Obama health care law. They are now paying $999 a month for two people--almost $1,000 a month for two people. I remember listening to President Obama and President Bill Clinton having a discussion in New York a couple days before the exchange opened. The President was saying: Easier to use than Amazon, and he said: Cheaper than your cell phone bill. The plan was going to cost less than your cell phone bill. This couple in North Carolina says they are paying almost $1,000 a month and their rates are going even higher. So it makes us wonder was the President of the United States again trying to mislead the American people intentionally? Did he not understand the law which was written behind closed doors over there in Harry Reid's office? Did he not care? Does he still not care? But that is what people are seeing and experiencing as a result of the President's health care law. But this couple is not the only one paying more because of the health care law. According to a new analysis by the Manhattan Institute, people all over the country are going to have to pay more--much more-- than what the President told them, much more than they ever anticipated. The Manhattan Institute found that for an average 64-year-old woman in North Carolina, her premiums would have been $210 a month in 2013, before the ObamaCare mandates and everything else kicked in. In 2014, 1 year later and all the mandates, buying insurance through the ObamaCare exchange her premiums almost triple to $623 a month. She is paying almost $5,000 a year more this year than last year because of the President's health care law that the Democrats voted for in the House and in the Senate. The President said it would lower premiums by $2,500 a year. Yet she is seeing her premiums go up by $5,000 a year. For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $80 a month in 2013. Under the President's health care law, $217 a month--an extra $1,600 a year than last year. That is not what the President promised him. President Obama then goes and gives a speech not that long ago and said: Democrats who voted for this law--and there are a lot of Members of this body that fit this description. Democrats who voted for this law should forcefully defend and be proud of it--forcefully defend and be proud, the President of the United States said just a couple weeks ago. Is there a Senator in this body who is willing to stand and forcefully defend the fact that people in North Carolina are paying double or triple for insurance? Is there anyone who wants to defend this expensive side effect of the health care law? I know some people have been helped by the law. Some people are paying less for insurance than they would have before, but many people are paying much more. That is because the people who pay less are getting a subsidy from Washington to help hide the rate hikes that everybody else is facing. President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Government doesn't solve problems; it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what is going on with the President's health care law. The Democrats who voted for this health care law did not solve the problem with our health care system. They just threw more money at it to hide the fact that the law actually made things worse. People wanted reform that gave them access to quality care, that gave them affordable care. No one wanted more expensive coverage. I will talk about one more example. That is the devastating side effect of smaller paychecks some families will be facing because of the Democrats' health care law. Another side effect, smaller paychecks. The law says employers--including State governments, including local governments, school districts, communities, counties--have to cover people who work 30 hours a week or more and treat them as full-time employees. They have to cover those people with insurance and treat them as full-time employees. That is what the law considers full-time employees. There was another story in Raleigh, NC, on WTVD. It said State agencies--we are not talking about for-profit businesses. State agencies are looking at cutting the hours of part-time workers to keep them under that 30-hour limit. The North Carolina Agriculture Department has about 240 part-time employees who are now working more than 30 hours--less than 40, more than 30--240 of these folks at the North Carolina Agriculture Department. How about the North Carolina Department of Transportation? They have almost 600 people in exactly the same situation. So North Carolina is going to have to look very closely at what to do with those individuals. If the hours are cut back to under 30 hours, that can mean smaller paychecks. One expert at Duke University told the TV station he expects the State will see 300,000 full-time workers be moved to part time. Local governments, State governments, private employers, they are all having to make these same decisions. Why? Because of the health care law. Those 300,000 workers moved to part time by the definition--not what the man or woman on the street thinks of as the definition of full time, but what the health care law defines it as. That is a big hit to people's paychecks, and it is another very harmful side effect in the health care law. It didn't have to be that way. Republicans have offered solutions for patient-centered health care reform such as increasing the ability of small businesses to get together, join together, negotiate for better rates, expand health savings accounts, allow people to buy insurance that works best for them and their family and shop in other States to do it, and not have to buy this whole big list of insurance the President says they need when it is not what their family needs. It is not what they need for their kids, for their families, for their spouses, not what they want, not what they can afford, because the President essentially thinks he knows better than American families about their own personal situation. Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not lower costs as a subsidy for some people, but lower costs for everybody. That is what we are working on, lower cost of care. 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 terrible side effects, because we know the list is there, one side effect after another. They are costly, harmful, some are irreversible, and nothing that the American people wanted. On the front-page headline today is ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise Rates.'' Insurance rates in 10 States that have completed their filings, stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, all but one of them, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5 and 22 percent for next year. The American people will once again realize that the Democrats and the President who voted for this health care law have broken their trust, broken their promises to the American people, and the American people deserve better. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, on Saturday, June 21, 2014, Senator Alan Simpson and his wife Ann will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in wishing them heartfelt congratulations. Their children Bill, Colin, and Sue, sent an announcement honoring this milestone saying their parents are ``celebrating 60 years of love, commitment and compromise.'' Those of us who have known and worked with Al and Ann Simpson have seen this spirit of love and devotion in every aspect of their lives. For six decades, Wyoming has been fortunate to learn from Al and Ann. Though they met much earlier, the couple first began dating while they were students at the University of Wyoming. Over 60 years later, they are a true power couple. Each complements the other in every way--they are resilient, compassionate, and know the value of compromise. This special relationship has evolved into a lifelong partnership that serves as a model for all of us to follow. My wife Bobbi and I look forward to celebrating this outstanding milestone with Al and Ann when we see them in Cody on July 4th. We will tell them what an inspiration they have been, not only to us, but to people all across the State. And, we will thank them for their service to Wyoming and our great Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam President. This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. I believe that Congress should do all it can to push the Obama administration to approve this project. This will, of course, help create American jobs; they will come along with the Keystone XL Pipeline. To me, this morning's committee vote was nothing more than a show vote. It is going to do nothing to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will put no pressure on the White House. It will not put a single shovel in the ground building the pipeline because the Democratic majority leader has absolutely no intention of allowing this bill to get to a vote right here on the Senate floor. The majority leader knows that if Senators got the chance to vote on this bill, there is a very high likelihood it would pass. President Obama cannot afford that, and the majority leader will not do anything the President does not want. The majority leader will not do anything to anger the extremists who fund the Democratic Party and who oppose an ``all of the above'' energy strategy in a plan that includes oil. I know the last thing Americans and the people in the gallery want to hear about is Senate process and Senate procedures, but here is why it matters: There are issues that are important to this country, issues such as jobs, energy, and controlling government spending. There are problems we need to solve in this country, and they are not being voted on here in the Senate because the majority leader continues to block votes. He has blocked votes, he has blocked amendments, and he has even blocked debate on one issue after another. I believe the majority leader has abused every power at his disposal and even broken the rules of the Senate--rules that have been in place for over a century. He has done this to give himself new powers. Over the past 6\1/2\ years the majority leader has taken an unprecedented stand against action in the Senate. He has used tactics such as the so- called filling the amendment tree on bills. That means he stops anyone else from offering amendments other than himself. He has used what is called rule XIV of the Standing Rules to bypass committees, so we are only able to talk about what he wants to talk about, not what our constituents want to talk about, what we hear about from home, or what other committee members want to talk about. These kinds of tactics may make it easier for Senator Reid to get what he wants, but they shut Senators--Republicans and Democrats--out of legislating and they shut out the American people whom all of us represent, Democrats as well as Republicans. Senator Reid has filled the amendment tree at least 85 times since he became majority leader. That is more than twice as many times as the previous six majority leaders combined. Between July 2013 and May of this year, Republicans in the Senate filed 810 amendments, but we only got a total of 9 votes--810 different ideas brought forward by Republicans, and Senator Reid has blocked vote after vote, to the point where we have gotten only 9 votes on 810 amendments, and this is almost in a full year. If you want a comparison, take a look at the House of Representatives, where the Republicans are in the majority but the minority party, the Democrats, have an opportunity to offer amendments and have votes. Over that same time period in the House of Representatives, the Democrats have gotten 132 votes on their amendments. The Democratic minority on the House side has had 132 votes, while the Republican minority on the Senate side has gotten a total of 9. In the Senate, it is not just the Republicans who are not getting their votes. The majority leader is blocking the Democrats as well. During that same time, from July of 2013 to May of 2014, Democrats introduced 676 amendments on legislation on the floor, and there were only 7 rollcall votes on 676 amendments. I guess it is not surprising that Republicans cannot get votes on their amendments, but it is very surprising that the Democrats cannot get votes because only the majority leader gets a vote. It is the same story on appropriations bills, and that is why I am here at this time--because we are dealing with appropriations bills. They are some of the most important bills we are supposed to consider in Congress. These are the bills which determine how much Washington spends every year on all the discretionary programs. We started debating the first of these yesterday, and we may do so over the next few weeks. It used to be that the Senate would take up these bills one by one, and Senators would get a chance to offer amendments and to represent the people who elected them to office. Not anymore. Under this Democratic majority leader, the amendment process on appropriations bills has been almost completely shut down. In the past 2 years Republicans have gotten just six amendments to appropriations bills. Senate Democrats only got one amendment during that same period. The Senate approved trillions--trillions--of dollars in Washington spending, but Harry Reid allowed action on just seven amendments total. In the 8 years before Senator Reid became majority leader, the Senate processed an average of almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills every year--every year almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills. Senators from both parties have been shut out of the process, and the people we represent have been shut out of the process as well--all by Senator Reid. It is the same kind of power grab we saw last September when the majority leader used the so-called nuclear option to stop debate in the Senate. He radically changed the rules of the Senate to strip the rights of the minority party. Originally, it had to do with eliminating the filibuster on nominations, but it is the same effect. The majority leader grabbed more power for himself and took away the right of anyone else in the Senate to represent their constituents. This is not how it is supposed to be. The Senate was designed to be a place where we debate these issues and where political minorities get fair representation. The father of our Constitution James Madison explained that the Senate's role was ``first to protect the people against the rulers.'' James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated that the Senate's role is ``first to protect the people against the rulers.'' That was the point of this body. That is why over its history the Senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections for political minorities. Well, the way the Senate has been run by Majority Leader Reid, it has been embarrassing, it has been unfair, and it has been insulting to the American people. Again, I know this isn't the most exciting topic of discussion for people to hear, but the damage that is being done by the Senate's failure to act is very real. Congress has important legislation to debate, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, but the majority leader won't even allow a vote on the bill. Our Nation has a total debt of $17.5 trillion, but the majority leader of the Senate blocks amendments that could improve the appropriations bills and maybe start to control Washington's wasteful spending. We should have an open amendment process on these appropriations bills this year, as we should have had in previous years, and we should be starting with the bill that is on the floor today. It is time for Democrats to stop the show votes and allow real votes on issues important to American families. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about some of the side effects we have been seeing from the health care law. When President Obama and Democrats in Congress were selling their health care law, they made a lot of promises. One of the big ones was that the health care law would save money. They said it was going to save money because people would be going to see physicians in offices for routine care instead of going to the emergency room. President Obama said: If everybody's got coverage, then they're not going to the emergency room for treatment. Well, just like promises about keeping your doctor if you like your doctor or keeping your insurance if you like your insurance--promises the President made--it turns out the President's claims about emergency room care weren't true either. That is what the Louisville Courier Journal says they have seen in the State of Kentucky. This was the headline on Monday, just a couple days ago: ``More patients flocking to ERs under ObamaCare.'' That is not what the President said, but that was the headline. The article says: It wasn't supposed to work this way, but since the Affordable Care Act took effect in January, Norton Hospital has seen its packed emergency room become even more crowded, with about 100 more patients a month. That is a 12-percent spike in the number of patients at the emergency room of that hospital in Louisville. As the article said, it wasn't supposed to happen that way, and that is why I come to the floor to talk about the side effects of the President's health care law. There are many side effects. They are harmful. They are expensive. Some are irreversible. But they are all related to promises made to the American people by a President who I don't believe fully understands his law. And I know there are many people in this body who voted for it who, I understand, never read it in the first place. Those are the concerns I have. Those are the concerns I hear at home in Wyoming every week, and I heard them this past weekend all around the Cowboy State. For the President, this emergency room situation may be just another surprising side effect of the health care law. And they are not seeing this just in Kentucky. According to a survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians, it is happening all across the country. Their survey found that 58 percent of emergency room doctors say they are seeing more patients since the beginning of the year. A doctor in Virginia told the Wall Street Journal that the health care law ``is going to stretch emergency doctors further, and that has implications on how quickly we can get people through.'' When the emergency rooms have more patients, it involves longer wait times for those patients. It seems the Democrats who voted for this health care law--many without reading it--were so focused on getting people insurance coverage that they came up with a system that actually makes it harder for people to get care. It was interesting listening to the President continuing to give speeches about coverage and ignoring the fact that people were worried about actually getting health care. That is a very dangerous side effect, but it is not the only side effect of the law. There are also incredibly expensive side effects of the health care law. There is an expensive side effect that a lot of people are starting to hear more about as States release information on insurance premiums for next year. Late last Friday the State of Maryland released their rates. We could tell it was going to be bad news for people in Maryland because they snuck the numbers out late Friday afternoon. It seems that is what happens when bad news comes out--they get it out late Friday afternoon. According to the Washington Post, the biggest insurance company in Maryland is CareFirst. This was in the Washington Post Metro section on Saturday, June 7: ``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.'' The article says: Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal health care law. The President of the United States said the health care law was going to save families $2,500 a year by the end of his first term. But what we are seeing here--Metro section, Washington Post, Saturday: ``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.'' Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal health care law. That is a very costly side effect of the health care law. Remember, the health exchange--where people are supposed to buy this insurance in Maryland--was so broken that they had to start over again. State officials spent $118 million to set up their own exchange. Now they are going to use software from Connecticut's exchange. Nobody got care for that money. That is wasted taxpayer dollars. Nobody got care. Connecticut may have gotten the software right, but people there are going to have to pay more for insurance too. The Washington Post says that two insurance carriers in Connecticut have proposed rate increases averaging about 12 percent. That is the average. Some people will have smaller increases, but many people will pay much more. President Obama said Democrats in Congress should forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. That is what he said they should do-- forcefully defend and be proud. Are there any Democrats who are ready to come down to the floor and forcefully defend these dangerous side effects of more people going to the emergency room, stretching overworked emergency room doctors even thinner, making for longer wait times in emergency rooms? Are Democrats going to come to the floor and forcefully defend and be proud of the law when they see expensive side effects such as the hefty premium increases in Maryland of 23 to 30 percent, 12 percent in Connecticut? It didn't have to be this way. Republicans offered ways to reform America's health care system back when we were debating the law, but President Obama and Democrats in Congress didn't want to hear it. We warned about some of these brutal side effects of the health care law that were going to hurt people, and we talked about bipartisan ideas that could have helped to maintain the access people had for the doctor they liked. That is what people want. They want the doctor they liked, and at the same time they want care to be more affordable. They want access to care, quality care, affordable care, not empty coverage, expensive coverage, which is what the President has provided. We are going to keep talking about measures that would expand access to health savings accounts to save money for families as well as for employers. I talked about that when some of us met with the President in 2010. The President didn't want to listen. It is too bad, but it is not too late. The Republicans are going to keep talking about letting consumers buy health insurance across State lines to increase competition, to let them shop for options they actually need, want, and will work for their family. That could actually help bring down prices, not drive them up as the Democrats' health care laws do. These are ideas Republicans have offered from the beginning, ways to give the American people care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. That is all people wanted in the beginning. Instead they got these harmful, hurtful, expensive side effects. We know what the American people have asked for. We know what they wanted, and that is what Republicans are going to continue to try to give them, not the empty promises from President Obama and Democrats who told the American people that the President and Democrats knew better what they needed or wanted than what the American people knew worked best for them and their families. Thank you. I yield the floor. Veterans Health Care

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with huge concerns about the Obama health care law. I do it as a physician, as a doctor, who has taken care of families all around the State of Wyoming for a couple of decades; as a past president of our State medical society; as someone committed to preventive care, coordinated care; as the medical director of the Wyoming health fairs to give people low- cost screenings for health care around the State Those continue today. There is one in the small community of Afton, WY, this very Saturday--2 days from today. So the effort continues to actually make sure people can get prevention, early recognition of problems, and actual care. The President's health care law hasn't done that. The President keeps focusing on the word ``coverage'' instead of what people wanted, which was care. It is interesting today, because in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, front page, today's newspaper, headline: Health-care law plagued by inconsistencies. At least 2 million people, the headline says, enrolled in insurance have problems with data that could affect their coverage. This is an Associated Press article on the front page of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. A huge paperwork headache for the government could also be jeopardizing coverage for some of the people who just got health insurance under the President's health care law. The President went on television 4 days before the kickoff of the exchanges and said this is going to be easier to use than amazon.com. He said that. It is cheaper than your cell phone bill. And, of course, he said people could keep their doctor if they liked their doctor. When people see how this rolled out and the problems they have had with it, they now have huge concerns about whether they can actually trust the Federal Government with anything. They see all of the problems coming out of Washington and they are saying, Why should we trust the government, the Washington-based government, with anything? Let's take a look at some of the States that set up their own exchange. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal: State Exchanges Seek Costly Fix. Five States that launched health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act expect to spend as much as $240 million to fix their sites or switch to the Federal marketplace. Not one person is going to get care because of that. That is $240 million to fix the bad sites that have already wasted money. How can people in these States of Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada--how can they say this is good for them? This health care law-- for people who wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost find more wasted government money--in Oregon alone, $255 million, money previously spent. The FBI is investigating them now in Oregon because of this. They say they want more money to upgrade the system. Minnesota: $141 million. What are we hearing from Minnesota? We are hearing school districts say we have to pay a lot more, so we are not going to be able to pay for teachers. We are not going to be able to pay for bus drivers. We are going to have to take it away from students to pay for the mistakes of this administration, this government, this law forced down the throats of the American public and voted for by many in this Chamber who never read it. They never read the bill, because they trusted Nancy Pelosi. She said, First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. We don't have to turn the clock back very far to go to the June 4 article posted in Roll Call, the local paper. Headline: Fiscal diagnosis--now, as a physician we do a physical diagnosis, but they are talking about a fiscal diagnosis: Fiscal Diagnosis Only Gets Tougher for Health Care Law. The first paragraph says, For Democratic lawmakers who were hesitant to sign onto this sweeping 2010 health care law, one of the most powerful selling points was that the Affordable Care Act would actually reduce the federal budget deficit . . . Four years later, headline: Fiscal Diagnosis Only Gets Tougher for Health Care Law. So we can talk about all of those numbers, but I want to talk about people who have actually been hurt by the health care law. There are people who have been helped, but there are many who have been hurt. People in my State--thousands and thousands--have had letters of cancellation. If they have gone onto the Web site and bought insurance, they found they paid a lot more for what they had to buy, because a lot of times it wasn't actually what they needed for themselves or for their family or what was best for them; it included coverage they would never use and don't want but still had to pay for, because the President seems to think he knows better what that family in Wyoming wants or needs than they do. That is not what America was built on--the government telling people what they have to buy, what they have to choose, what they have to have as their health insurance or their care. It is interesting that even National Public Radio has a story about a couple, a family--because one of my colleagues from Connecticut comes to the floor and says he thinks ObamaCare is working. This couple says it doesn't work--does not work. ``Frustrated By The Affordable Care Act, One Family Opts Out.'' This is a family in Texas, reported on National Public Radio. Rachel's husband wanted to make sure they had insurance. Rachel was skeptical, but Nick, her husband, went on line and started shopping. He had a lot of trouble getting through the glitchy Web site at first, but eventually he found a plan that would work just for his wife. He was concerned about his wife. She was pregnant. So this past January, as soon as the plan began, Nick printed out a list of obstetricians from the plan's Web sites. He said: I handed it to Rachel, fully confident, fully feeling like I had accomplished something for her, I had come through for my wife. Well, they called obstetricians because she was pregnant. Some would just say, We don't take Obama. One of the best was: ``The doctor takes it here in the actual practice, but whatever hospital you use''--none of those hospitals take ObamaCare. She said: It was mind numbing, because I was sitting there thinking, I am paying close to $400 a month just for me to have insurance that doesn't even work. What am I paying for? How could this not be working, her husband said. The United States Government has set this up. It is this whole big deal, he said. They are having commercials everywhere saying we need to use this, and these people are just saying, no, no, no, and it just made me so mad. So, as the headline says, they opted out. That is what the President has given the American people; not affordable care, not available care, not quality care, not access to care but a lot of promises not delivered upon. Many people across this country have been hurt by this health care law. I am going to continue to work on ways to reform health care in America in a way that is good for patients as well as the providers who take care of them, and responsible for the American taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Certainly. Absolutely. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services because as a physician I am very concerned and want to make sure Americans can get health care. I think getting care is actually much more important than getting the insurance component of that, but that is nothing new, and I said that to the President. In so many ways, the President has actually offered empty coverage but is not actually providing an opportunity for care for people. We have seen situations where people are paying higher premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles, all of which are the many side effects of the President's health care law. When I hear my colleague from Connecticut make reference to rates going up, let's face it. What the President of the United States said is that premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first term. The President didn't say, well, it will not go up as fast or that it will go up some, but don't worry about it. The facts are that people are continuing to be hurt by the health care law, and much of it is as a result of the expense of the law. Last week USA Today had a report that said: ``Many employees hit with higher health care premiums.'' They go on to say: More than half of companies increased employees' share of health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in 2013. . . . Why? Because of the health care law. What other things have businesses that are trying to provide health insurance for their employees had to do? Thirty-two percent of the time the businesses delayed raises for the individuals because the cost of insurance under the President's health care law has gone up so much. People who are concerned about take-home pay are getting hurt by the health care law. According to this USA Today report, 22 percent eliminated or cut back on benefits, and 21 percent of these folks were cut back from full-time work to part-time work. That is obviously a hit to somebody's take-home pay. The report says health care premiums have increased 80 percent since 2003, nearly three times faster than wages and nearly three times faster than inflation. The health care law has actually failed to do what the President promised when it comes to actually providing care and affordable care. As I look around the country, it is interesting to see what is happening. There was a report out very recently about hundreds of thousands of Iowans who don't have coverage. The report goes on to talk about a woman who said she drove a half hour from Mitchellville recently to seek care for flu-like symptoms at a free clinic in Des Moines. She is an assistant manager of a convenience store. She has been offered insurance by her employer but would have to pay $111 every 2 weeks for her part of the premium, and she said: ``I can't afford that. . . . There's no way on Earth.'' Our colleague from Connecticut said it is working. It is not working, and it is because of the mandates of the law, such as the mandate that people have to get insurance that the government says they need as opposed to what may be good for them or their family. The woman, Reinna, said she heard most Americans are required to have health insurance this year or pay a penalty. Democrats who voted for this said if someone doesn't buy the insurance, they have to pay a penalty. She heard that and learned it was equal to 1 percent of her income. According to this article from the Des Moines Register where they had their primary elections yesterday, in Iowa, the Des Moines Register: The lady laughed ruefully at the prospect. ``I don't care. They can fight me for it.'' So this is a woman in Iowa, knows about the penalty, knows about the mandates, and she would say to my colleague from Connecticut who was just on the floor that it is not working for her. She bristled at the new requirement to obtain insurance. She said, if we could afford it, do you think we would be standing out here? Of course, where she was standing was in a line for a free clinic, nodding at a half dozen others in line on the sidewalk waiting for the free clinic to hold one of its twice-a-week sessions. I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly, to talk about the issues of the health care law as a doctor trying to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, and seeing that the President's health care law has failed miserably because so many people have been hurt by this health care law. They have had their insurance canceled, even though the President said, Oh, no, it won't happen. He said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. National folks who assessed this called that the lie of the year. We also see that many people cannot keep their doctors, and they are finding out that their copays are higher, their premiums are higher. It is interesting, because it is affecting people in so many different ways. Minnesota is another State where there has been a lot of debate and discussion about the health care law. The headline in the Mankato Times: ``Minnesota Schools to lose more than $200 Million because of ObamaCare.'' My colleague from Connecticut just said it is working. Well, if it is working, why are the Minnesota schools losing $200 million because of the health care law? The article says: State Representative Paul Torkelson said the wasteful spending on ObamaCare that has left many taxpayers outraged will soon be making a significant impact on Minnesota's schools--a significant impact on Minnesota schools. According to documents released by Minnesota's management and budget office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with Affordable Care Act compliance will cost school districts statewide at least $207 million. It is troubling news for our schools, the State representative said. This is $200 million that school districts won't be able to use to hire more teachers or improve their educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does absolutely nothing for our students. The senator concludes by saying: It is pretty sad when schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our children. So I come to the floor when I hear my colleague from Connecticut saying it is working to say it is not working all across the country. It is not working in so many ways that the President said it is. The President said Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. I don't know how a Senator can stand up who voted for this and be proud of what we are seeing happening to school districts all across the State of Minnesota. The President continues to tout some number of people who signed up across the country, and I always ask, How many of them actually have insurance? In Oregon, a story just out in the last week or two, in The Oregonian: Thousands have not paid premiums for Cover Oregonian health policies, placing coverage at risk. So in spite of what my colleague from Connecticut may have said, this article says a large number of people who have signed up for private health insurers through the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange have not paid their first month's premiums, meaning they are at risk of going without coverage through November. More than 81,000 people went through Cover Oregon--either through paper or electronic applications--to select a private plan. We know about the failures of that exchange. We know that the FBI, I believe, is investigating it. Of those, 5,000 have already canceled policies or been terminated for lack of payment. Thousands more have not yet paid their first month's premiums, meaning they have not completed their enrollment, according to the carriers. The President talks about the numbers of enrollees. I don't know how many people actually paid to continue--to consistently say they have insurance, and consistent insurance, all the way through. Insurers say anywhere between 66 to 80 percent of consumers have paid, meaning anywhere from 20 to 34 percent have not. So it is hard for me to say that things are working. It is interesting. Unions, which have supported the law, have come out with concerns. UNITE HERE, a union in Las Vegas, representing many of the casino workers, 2,000 housekeepers, waiters, others at 9 of 10 downtown Las Vegas casinos, are concerned about the cost. One of the union leaders has said, when we first supported the calls for health care reform, we thought it was going to bring costs down. That did not happen, and that is why I am here on the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. I would say that many people in Oregon have been helped and many have been hurt. That is the problem with this health care law. There are people who have been helped, absolutely. I just believe that the costly side effects, the harmful side effects, the dangerous side effects of this health care law have actually hurt people. So for people who may have been helped, there are as many, if not more, who have been hurt through higher premiums, higher copays, loss of their doctor, can't go to their hospital--all of those things--plus, at the expense of significant amounts of taxpayer money wasted. I think we are seeing that situation in Oregon right now with potential lawsuits being filed, FBI investigating, whether there was oversight, and hundreds of millions of dollars, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, of wasted taxpayer dollars. Oregon, I believe Massachusetts as well; Maryland, Minnesota, States that I have been talking about here.

Mr. BARRASSO. I am referring to people who have been hurt by the health care law all across the country. I worry about the more than 5 million people who have lost their coverage as a result of the health care law.

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you. I am merely trying to respond to my colleague. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor as the Senate begins the debate on the nomination of Sylvia Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. If she is confirmed for that job, she would be responsible for implementing thousands of pages of regulations related to the President's health care law. I think it is appropriate, as we consider this nomination, to take a little bit of time and talk about the state of the President's health care law. Just this morning I visited with a number of people from Uinta County, WY. I will tell you what they know and what we all know, and that is there are many dangerous side effects of the law, such as people losing access to their doctor and getting smaller paychecks. Today I want to talk specifically about the expensive side effect so many Americans are facing, and that is how much health insurance premiums are rising because of the law. States are starting to release the proposed premiums insurance companies expect to charge next year under the Obama health care law. The numbers are not good for the American people--for people who wanted affordable care, quality care, and access to care, the kinds of things the President of the United States looked into the camera and promised them. Virginia was one of the first States to put out the numbers. What is happening in the State of Virginia? Every health plan sold in the State exchange expects to raise its rates next year. The State expects some people to pay as much as 17 percent more next year. In Vermont, it is a similar story. There are two companies offering plans in the State exchange. Yesterday we learned that one intends to raise rates 10 percent, the other expects to raise its rates 15 percent next year. Last Friday Ohio released its proposed rates for people buying insurance through the exchange. The average premium in the State's individual market is expected to be 13 percent higher next year than it was last year. According to State insurance regulators, it is bad news, but it is what they expected. The State Lieutenant Governor said: Continued and unnecessary headwinds out of Washington are making it more difficult for job creators, hard-working Ohioans and their families to purchase health insurance. President Obama said the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. Is there a Democrat in this body--even one--who is willing to come to the floor and forcefully defend premium increases of 13 percent, 15 percent, or 17 percent in 1 year alone? More States are going to be releasing their new premiums all summer. More people around the country are going to see these kinds of rate increases. This is an alarming side effect of the President's health care law. That is on top of the rate increases people have already had to pay for insurance for this year. It is astonishing when you look at the numbers. It is not just families buying health insurance through the exchanges who are getting slammed. USA Today ran a headline last week which said: More employees are getting hit with higher health insurance premiums and co-payments, and many don't have the money to cover unexpected medical expenses, a new report finds. The report found that 56 percent of companies increased their employees' share of health premiums for copayments for doctors' visits last year after the health care law came into effect, and 59 percent of companies intend to do the same thing this year. So people buying insurance in the exchange are being hurt, people who get insurance through work are being hurt, and small businesses are being hurt as well. There was an article in the Alaska Dispatch about this last Thursday. It said: ``Alaska's small businesses feel the pinch of rising health care costs.'' The article tells the story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. He wants to offer health insurance coverage, but he is paying $5,000 a month more than he paid last year for his share of the insurance. He is somebody who wants to provide insurance, but it is now $5,000 more a month for his 24 employees. He says the costs are crippling and that it is like meeting another payroll every month. This small business owner said the health care law is ``killing me.'' He says, ``I just don't know how long we can keep absorbing these costs.'' These are costs put on this business owner in Alaska by every Member of the Senate who voted for this health care law--every one of them. I invite any one of them to come down here to forcefully defend this law as the President requests that they do and be proud of what they have done to this small business owner. Are Democrats in the Senate who voted for this health care law proud of what the law is doing to this small business owner in Alaska? Are they willing to forcefully defend his having to pay an extra $5,000 a month? That is what people are dealing with. There is a story which just came out today about North Carolina-- another State where a Senator has said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The headline to this story is ``ObamaCare cripples North Carolina small business.'' It says: A North Carolina woman currently living her dream--to own a salon--could soon shatter and crumble, leaving her employees to pay astronomical costs for health insurance, all because of ObamaCare. Julia Vittorio, owner of Fresh Salon for the past five years, is worried that she will not be able to provide her employees with health insurance. She said: ``I think you just want the best for your employees.'' I think that is what many people around the country want: the best for their employees. She said: ``We are a small business and it's very much like a family, so I care about our staff.'' That is what she told a television station, WCNC in Charlotte. She previously offered her employees health insurance and paid part of it, but has been forced to reconsider her decision because of the rising costs of premiums. ``We've been very proud to even carry it for this long, but it's certainly a concern moving into the future if we're going to be able to keep doing it,'' she explained. Veronica Cook, a hairdresser who has worked at Fresh Salon since it opened, said: ``It's frustrating and scary and you don't know what to expect.'' I think that applies to many people around the country as a result of the President's health care law--this quote: ``It's frustrating and scary and you don't know what to expect.'' She is not sure what she will do if she has to pay for her own insurance. That is what this devastating side effect of the President's health care law is doing to people all around the country. The President says he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Democrats say it over and over. Is this small business owner getting a fair shot? Are the families of Ohio getting a fair shot when their premiums go up as much as 13 percent next year? Some Democrats who voted for the health care law have come out and said that the rates may be going up, but not as fast as maybe they would have without the law. But let's take a step back. When they were trying to pass this health care law, Democrats said it would only raise premiums--no. Democrats never said it would only raise premiums by 10 to 13 percent. No. They said it would drop premiums by $2,500 a year. That is what the President said--$2,500 per family per year, and he said by the end of his first term. Well, we met with the President in February of 2010 at the White House at the roundtable discussion. Senator Lamar Alexander, my colleague from Tennessee, asked specifically about the predictions that the premiums, as we have seen, would go up. The President was making these promises, claims that they would go down. The President denied again to each of us in a face-to-face meeting that they would go up. The President said: ``That's just not the case.'' Well, now what we do know is it is the case, and it was the case all along. People believed the President when he promised he would save them money. They thought that Democrats were giving them this fair shot the President talks about. Now they are finding out what they got: higher premiums, higher costs, higher deductibles, higher copays, loss of coverage, you can't keep your doctor. It is hard to believe the President of the United States. This is not what people wanted. People wanted a fair shot. But it is not what the President and Democrats in Congress actually gave them in the health care law. Many of them who voted for it never read it. Nancy Pelosi said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. But it did not stop the Democrats who voted for it from making those same promises--promises: If you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Premiums will go down. All of those promises--each one of them turned out to be not true. A fair shot is exactly what Republicans have offered, and that is-- and I can tell you this as a doctor--what patients want is patient- centered care, not government-controlled and mandated care--a patient- centered approach that would solve the biggest problems that families face: access to care, cost of care, quality care. That means measures such as allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy insurance more cheaply for their employees. It means letting people shop for health insurance that actually works for them and works for their families, not what the President says is best for them. So in closing let me just say, these are just a couple of the solutions Republicans have offered to give Americans the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without the outrageous, expensive side effects of the President's health care law. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today marks the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The violent suppression and forcible dispersion in Tiananmen Square by the Government of China resulted in the death and injury of peaceful demonstrators. I have worked with Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, through the Foreign Relations Committee, on a resolution expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, those tortured, and those imprisoned due to their participation in the peaceful democracy movement in Tiananmen Square. Our resolution also calls out the Government of China for subjecting its citizens to physical attacks, harassment, and detention for attempting to discuss or commemorate the events of June 1989. The Chinese authorities to this day continue to block and censor public discussions and events marking the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. The resolution also condemns the ongoing human rights abuses by the Government of China. The United States has a long record of championing liberty and freedom around the world. The Senate must stand up and support those individuals who have in the past and continue to this very day to demand their rights in China. So Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 383, S. Res. 451. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.