John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I will be less than 2 minutes. Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today the Obama administration released a new plan intended to shut down American powerplants. Instead of celebrating his policies in the Rose Garden, President Obama delegated the bad news to the Environmental Protection Agency. Make no mistake about it; what they are announcing today is another step in the President's plan to make electricity rates ``necessarily skyrocket.'' Remember, that is what the President promised Americans when he was running for President the first time in 2008. Of course, when he was elected Congress said no--no to his radical plan. Even when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and the Democrats had 60 Members of the Senate--even with complete Democratic domination in both Houses of Congress--Congress still said: No, Mr. President, this is a bad idea. So the President decided he knew better than the American people, the elected representatives. He decided to go around Congress and go around the American people. I turn to the front page of today's Wyoming Tribune Eagle out of Cheyenne, WY, and the headline is: ``Obama Lets EPA Do His Dirty Work.'' The subheadline says: ``The president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack.'' On the front page of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle they go on to say: When the Obama administration unveils its much-anticipated proposal to curb power plant emissions, this cornerstone of the president's climate change policy--the most significant environmental regulation of his term--will not be declared in a sun-bathed Rose Garden news conference or from behind the lectern in a major speech. It will not be announced by the president at all, but instead by his head of the Environmental Protection Agency, while President Barack Obama adds his comments in an off- camera conference call. . . . Talk about something that is unpopular with the American people, it is this. About 1 year ago, the President put out rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new powerplants--powerplants that were being constructed--but today--today--his Environmental Protection Agency is applying tight new limits on the emissions of existing powerplants-- powerplants that are already there producing energy. The administration says it is going to allow States ``flexibility'' in how they meet the new limits. I believe any ``flexibility'' that is being offered is just an illusion. States will have a severely limited number of options for what they can do to meet the standards. Every one of those options is going to raise the cost of energy for American families. That means consumers will not even get the illusion of flexibility; they will get higher energy costs. Businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their own higher bills because it is not just going to be families, when they turn on the light switch, who are going to get a higher electric bill. As the President said, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, but businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their higher energy costs, which will mean hiring fewer people, laying off people, passing on the cost to others. That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says an aggressive policy targeting coal-fired powerplants will lead to less disposable income for families and thousands of jobs lost. So families will have less disposable income and thousands of jobs will be lost. We just learned last week that our economy shrank by 1 percent in the last quarter. The U.S. economy shrank. This is the first time in years the economy actually shrank by 1 percent in the last quarter. It is the first time it has happened, actually, since 2011. Our labor force participation rate is at the same level it was when Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States. So now the Obama administration wants to put more Americans out of work. The action they are taking today is the height of irresponsibility and it is tone-deaf leadership. The Obama administration is going to try to defend their extreme regulations by saying, once again, these changes will help save lives and keep families healthy. The fact is they are totally ignoring the undeniable fact that when Americans lose their jobs, their health and the health of their children suffer. There is an enormous public health threat from high unemployment, specifically chronic high unemployment. It increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illness, and premature death. It hurts children's health and the well-being of families. It influences mental illness, suicide, alcohol abuse, spouse abuse. It is an important risk factor in stroke and high blood pressure and heart disease--major things that impact a family, raise the cost of care. I saw it in my days of medical training in medical practice, and the White House knows it too. One might say: How does the White House know? The New York Times actually ran an article on this in November of 2011--November 17, to be exact. The headline of the article was ``Policy and Politics Collide as Obama Enters Campaign Mode.'' ``Policy and Politics Collide as Obama Enters Campaign Mode.'' The article says a meeting occurred in the White House between the American Lung Association and then-White House Chief of Staff William Daley, and the meeting was about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ozone regulations. In that White House meeting, White House Chief of Staff Daley asked a simple question when confronted with the argument that additional Clean Air Act regulations would improve public health. Daley asked: ``What are the health impacts of unemployment?'' Well, I have just gone over them with you, Mr. President. Those are the health impacts of unemployment. So the White House knows about it--totally aware about it. When the Environmental Protection Agency announced these new rules today, the President himself was reportedly talking off camera--a conference call--on the phone with the American Lung Association. Someone in that room should be talking about the disastrous public health effects of the unemployment that these rules are causing. The fact is that more regulation from Washington is not what America needs right now. States already have flexibility in how they approach environmental stewardship, and many of them have come up with creative solutions. Last month the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses issued a report called ``Washington Gets it Wrong--States Get it Right.'' The report showed how regulations imposed by Washington are undermining-- undermining--the work being done at the State level to manage our lands, to manage our natural resources, and to protect our air and our water. It gave success stories--success stories--where the work being done by States is more reasonable, more effective, and less heavyhanded than the rules ordered by Washington. America does not need Washington to pay lip service to flexibility while mandating huge price increases in energy. America wants Washington to stop the overreaching regulations and mandates and to actually allow the States to get it right. Thousands of Americans have already lost their jobs because of Washington's expensive and excessive regulations. Now the President is putting more jobs on the chopping block. That is why I have written legislation that would stop President Obama's massive increase to the Nation's electric bill. I offered this as an amendment last fall. Democrats in the Senate blocked it. I plan to offer it again and to keep making the point that the President should not have the power, the authority to impose these burdens on the American economy and on American families. My amendment blocks the issuance of new carbon standards for new and existing powerplants. It would actually require the approval of Congress--can you imagine that, the approval of Congress, the elected representatives of the people--require the approval of Congress for regulations that increase Americans' energy bills, such as new rules proposed by the Obama administration today. Congress should act on an affordable energy plan, but these kinds of decisions should be for Congress to make, not for the President to make on his own. That is true whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. We all know we need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can. It is critically important though that we do this without hurting our economy--a struggling economy, an economy where people continue to sacrifice--and do this in ways that do not cost hundreds of thousands of middle-class families their jobs. We should look to States that have come up with ways to balance our energy needs, the health of our economy, and our environment. President Obama is taking the wrong approach. These new regulations are going to hurt our economy. It is an economy that is already shrinking. It is astonishing; our economy is shrinking, and it is because of the President's other failed policies. The policies introduced today will hurt middle-class families who are struggling to find work or to keep the jobs they have now. They will harm the health of many Americans. The President needs to change course. If he will not do it on his own, Congress must do it for him. So, once again, today we see the headline: ``Obama Lets EPA Do His Dirty Work.'' ``The president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack.'' Instead, he is hiding. The President today is hiding. If this is something the President was proud of, he should have been at the White House in the Rose Garden in front of the cameras making an announcement, not asking his EPA Administrator to make it so he could be on a conference call because he was ashamed to show his face to the American people because of the impact these regulations are going to have on families all across America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor after having just heard my friend and colleague from Connecticut talk about the health care law. As a doctor, I am always happy to hear about people who are getting better care. My concern is that there are so many people across this country who have been hurt as a result of this health care law that I feel compelled to speak about so many of the side effects of the President's health care law and families who are seeing the government waste massive amounts of money that is not going for care. It is not helping people actually get better. It is not giving them the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, which is what the President promised when he said premiums would drop by $2,500. I heard the President, as well as my colleague here today, say that this law will help keep people out of emergency rooms and they will go to primary care doctors instead. So I feel compelled to come to the floor to share with my colleagues a study that just came out on Wednesday, and perhaps some Members of the Senate who weren't aware of it will be made aware that the emergency room visits actually have been going up, not down, despite the law. This was the headline in the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday, May 21: ``ER Visits Rise Despite Law. Health Act Isn't Cutting Volume.'' I will point out a couple of things mentioned in this article. It starts off: Early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have become busier since the Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage this year, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in ERs. My colleague said emergency rooms aren't going to be needed as much. Well, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in ERs, what we see is an expensive side effect of the President's health care law. It goes on to say: Democrats who designed the 2010 health law hoped it would do the opposite. They wanted to give the uninsured better access to primary-care doctors who could treat routine ailments and prevent chronic diseases, with the intent of keeping patients out of the ER. The median ER charge was more than $1,200 for the most frequent outpatient diagnoses in a study of over 8,000 ER visits in the years 2006-08, said a 2013 report funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. This is a report by the NIH. Instead, the ER doctor group's research and several other recent studies suggest that people who gain private insurance are more likely to seek emergency care. Not more likely to go to a family physician, not more likely to go to their own internist or pediatrician; more likely to go to the emergency room--the most expensive place for care--despite what the President told the American people. Among the reasons is that a shortage of primary-care providers in some regions has made it difficult for patients to get appointments. So why is there a shortage? Well, if the President's health care law actually focused on training physicians, putting money into educating and training more providers, instead of putting all of this money into hiring IRS agents to examine Americans' tax returns to make sure they check the box that says they have insurance and can provide proof of that, perhaps we wouldn't have these problems. But now we are seeing a very expensive side effect of the President's health care law. While we can celebrate people who are helped by the law, there are so many people being hurt by the law in every State around this great country. We heard about a family from Connecticut who has benefited from the law. There are many who have been hurt. There is a couple in Sharon, CT, according to NBC Connecticut. They were dropped, according to the headline, from their health care plan. It says: A Sharon couple says they are running out of options after being dropped from their ObamaCare insurance plan. John and Dawn DiMarco signed up for an Affordable Care Act plan through the state health insurance exchange during open enrollment. They received their insurance card and were covered but their bill was thousands of dollars more than advertised. What could happen there? It says: They spent weeks going back and forth with various State agencies and the insurance company to try to get answers. This is dated May 13 of this year. Then, this month, their carrier, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield, sent them a cancellation notice. The DiMarcos have been so frustrated with trying to get answers that they posted a sign outside their home that reads-- This is in Connecticut-- ``We have no insurance because Access Health has a computer glitch.'' It's stressful, says Mr. DiMarco. It's overwhelming. So why did this happen? Well, NBC Connecticut contacted Access Health Connecticut, and they told them that it had to do with a computer issue with a vendor, and when this gentleman went back to change information during the enrollment process, a new form was sent to the insurance company, but that form didn't include the couple's subsidy. So the form paperwork was wrong. How could this happen? Is it just this one DiMarco couple whom this has happened to in Connecticut? Not according to a front-page story in the Washington Post the other day. The headline is ``Federal health-care subsidies may be too high or too low for more than 1 Million Americans''--paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health plans, and the government has been unable so far to fix the errors. The President of the United States goes on TV and says to the Democrats: Forcefully defend and be proud. Who in America can be proud of the mess the President and his administration have made of the Web site and this health care bill? Once again, we see, as the Washington Post points out, important aspects of the Web site remain defective. They cannot fix this. Actually, I am not even sure how hard they are trying. People have been sending in paperwork. They are expecting, perhaps, by the end of the summer to be able to address the problem that there are 1 million Americans whose Federal health care subsidies may be either too high or too low. ``Forcefully defend and be proud.'' Where are they? Where are these defenders? It is sad because the idea is this is to actually help people get care. What people have gotten is headaches and heartaches and one problem after another. It is also interesting, as a doctor who has been very involved with preventive care and working on early detection of problems and as somebody who has been the medical director of the Wyoming health fairs--I think it is important to screen people for problems. It is interesting. The New York Times even reported in an article written on April 30 on the problem with the health care law that it favors screening over diagnosis. So here is one of the issues that come into play. My wife is a breast cancer survivor. She has been through three operations, chemotherapy twice, radiation, the whole thing. She is now cancer free. We are delighted. So I think screening tests are important. But this is the problem with this law that I believe very few Democrats read--very few of the people who voted for it read. I believe that about Members of the House and Members of the Senate. I read it cover to cover, but I believe many Members who voted for it never read it. They say: Diagnosis is what we offer to those who have no signs or symptoms of disease. Because diagnosis isn't prevention, it is subject to deductibles and copays. So if somebody actually has a diagnosis of something, there are deductibles and copays, but if it is just a screening test, no signs or symptoms, then it is covered. The New York Times goes on: In other words: A woman over 40 can have a free screening mammogram. She shows up and says: I want a free screening mammogram. But if she notices a breast lump and goes to her doctor to have it evaluated, well, then it is not a screening mammogram. Then it is not a free test. So she will pay for the diagnostic mammogram that costs $300. This goes on: So the woman at lower risk for cancer--the one with no signs or symptoms of the disease--has an incentive to be tested, while the woman at higher risk--the one with the lump--faces a disincentive. So she goes to the doctor. This goes on and says that the problem is they are now pressuring doctors to fraudulently change the paperwork so it complies with the screening test and not a diagnostic test. Doctors don't want to do that because they want to be honest. Yet the incentives set up in this program are to discourage the woman who finds a lump from actually going in to have the test, while encouraging somebody off the street to go in and have a similar test. It is a great concern. So when I see a colleague come to the floor to say that the health care law, in his opinion, works--I will tell my colleagues, this is an Associated Press story that says: ``Consumers frustrated by new health plans as they find their doctors are not included.'' They can't go to their doctor. This is a story out of California. Michelle Pool is one of those customers. Before enrolling in a new health plan on California's exchange, she checked whether her longtime primary care doctor was covered. This woman, Michelle Pool--60 years of age, a diabetic; she has had back surgery and a hip replacement--purchased the plan only to find that the insurer was mistaken; the doctor wasn't included. So her $352-a-month gold plan, she said, was cheaper than what she had paid under her husband's insurance and it seemed like a good deal because of her numerous preexisting conditions. I understand preexisting conditions as the husband of a woman who has been through breast cancer treatment. This goes on to say: But after her insurance card came in the mail, the Vista, California resident learned her doctor wasn't taking her new insurance. It goes on to say, quoting this woman: ``It's not fun when you've had a doctor for years and years that you can confide in and he knows you,'' Pool said. ``I'm extremely discouraged. I'm stuck.'' This is an American who is stuck and hurt by the health care law. It goes on to say: The dilemma undercuts President Obama's-- This is an Associated Press article-- The dilemma undercuts President Obama's 2009 pledge that: ``If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.'' The President said: ``period.'' But one of the side effects of the President's health care law is that people are continuing to lose their doctors. It goes on to say: Consumer frustration over losing doctors comes as the Obama administration is still celebrating a victory with more than 8 million enrollees in its first year. There are astronomical concerns that people across the country are expressing about this health care law. And yet--and yet--we see one Member of the other party coming to the floor and saying: Oh, it is working. The American people do not believe it is. People get insurance through work. The laws are interesting. This is a story from Ohio about the cost because that is what really people were concerned about when we wanted to do health care reform; it was to say let's get the cost down. The President promised families would see a $2,500 reduction in the cost of their insurance policies in a year once all of this was implemented. But one of the side effects is actually higher premiums. This article talks about a man who owns a popular brew pub in Cleveland. He has fewer than 50 full-time employees. So he is classified under the health care law as a small business, which means he does not actually have to provide health insurance to his employees. But he has been doing so. He has been doing so since he opened this pub a number of years ago, and he has done it in spite of some fairly significant jumps in the cost of the insurance. He said: ``They just seemed to keep going up every year.'' He opened this pub in 2009. One year he got an increase of 38 percent; another it was 11 percent. The article says: ``This year, under the Affordable Care Act, he saw another hike--this one about 20 percent.'' So he is seeing higher premiums. He said: ``It just seems odd that we get such a drastic price increase when nothing has really changed with us as far as our employees and health issues.'' Most of the workers at [his place] are in their 20s and 30s. They are healthy, enthusiastic about their jobs. . . . They like the fact that they get insurance, but they are getting priced out of the market. That is the concern about this: the health care law is making premiums go up. From today, Thursday, May 22, The Hill newspaper, right here in Washington, DC: ``Premium hike drumbeat before Nov. Election Day.'' People continue to be shocked by the increases in the cost of their insurance, and they are going to go up again across the country. There are a number of reasons for that. We have seen it in North Carolina, where I expect this is going to be discussed and debated over the next months. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. . . . This comes from the Herald-Sun in North Carolina: ObamaCare enrollees older, sicker than insurer forecast--older and sicker than what the President told--actually it was not the President; it was Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, when she described what she thought success would look like in terms of the number of young healthy people who would sign up. It says: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina officials said-- This is dated May 8-- . . . that they found that the people who enrolled in the individual Affordable Care Act plans it sold on the online health exchanges were older and sicker than expected. That may mean higher rates-- Higher premiums-- for Affordable Care Act plans in the future. . . . The insurer's vice president of health policy said: ``[It's] a concern when we think about future premiums.'' They have great concerns about the amount things are going to go up. That is not what people want. People wanted affordable care. They wanted access to care. They wanted to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. What they see is waste--money not going to help people get care, but money being wasted. I found it interesting coming out of Missouri, a story about how an ObamaCare contractor pays employees to spend their days doing nothing-- doing nothing--paying their employees to do nothing. ``A billion dollar government contract involving hundreds of local workers at an ObamaCare processing center. . . . '' So these are people hired by the government or a contractor to work at an ObamaCare processing center--hundreds of local workers. ``But now employees on the inside are stepping forward, asking, Is this why we're broke? Some of them claim to spend most of their day doing nothing,''. . . . This is reported in St. Louis. The contractor is called Serco and local reporters discovered that, despite there not being any work to be done, the government contractor is still hiring. Why would they be hiring? Because they get a percent of the action. That is why they are hiring. They are hiring people to not do anything, to take the paycheck. The article continues: ``The company is still hiring,'' says a local reporter. ``A current employee wonders why. . . . After providing proof of employment, this . . . employee agreed to speak through the phone with their voice altered. The employee says hundreds of employees spend much of the day staring at computer screens, with little or no work to do.'' The reporter asks the employee, ``Are there some days where a data entry person may not process a single application?'' Not a single application? The person who works there said: ``There are weeks''--weeks--``when a data entry person would not process an application.'' The anonymous employee says the contract gets paid by the federal government per employee hired. That is why they are continuing to hire--because the company gets paid by the Federal Government per employee hired, which is why it is in their interest to have a bunch of employees sitting around all day doing nothing. So I have to feel an obligation, when I hear a statement on the floor being made that says: Well, a lot fewer people are going to go to the emergency room; it is going to save money--that has not happened. Studies from emergency room doctors, work from the NIH said it is not happening. The exact opposite has happened--a side effect of the health care law, when we see that people are not able to keep their doctors, in spite of the President promising people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I feel compelled to come to the floor and share that story with those of us who care about care for patients, who care about finding a way to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. That is what people want. They know what they want. They want access to care. They want affordable care. They want care, they want choices, and they want quality care. I believe this health care law is turning out to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the doctors, the nurses, the paramedics, the nurse practitioners--who take care of those patients, and terrible for the taxpayers when we hear stories like this one out of Missouri, which says the employees are being paid to sit around and do nothing, when we hear there are a million people who are just waiting to try to get the government to correct something that should have been fixed in the beginning, when the President, 4 days before the Web site opened up in October, said: easier to use than Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone; keep your doctor if you like your doctor--there was so much misleading of the American public--and then when he says stand and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law. I think it is very hard to defend what the President and the Democrats have forced down the throats of the American public, and it is very hard to be proud of the kind of abuse and waste in a system that--whatever the intentions--has proven to the American public to be something they do not want, that they want to have replaced with an opportunity to have access, affordability, choice, and quality. By adopting proposals in a step-by-step fashion that Republicans have been promoting--to deal with those sorts of things of access, affordability, choice, and quality--we can try to ultimately get the American public what they need and what they asked for in the beginning: the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on June 6, 2014, the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper will dedicate its new Orthopedic, Spine and Surgery Center to an American patriot, Jerry Behrens, M.D. For years, patients in Wyoming have known Jerry to be a compassionate, thorough, and trusted surgeon. He has cared for thousands of patients in Casper and around the State. What they may not know is that his character was shaped by the courage and determination he displayed half a world away in Vietnam. Dr. Behrens always knew he wanted to help others. For that reason, he completed his medical degree and internship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Although he was excited about beginning a family and a new career, he felt a calling to serve a higher cause. It was this desire which pushed him to volunteer as a medical doctor in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam Conflict. Attached to the 3rd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, Dr. Behrens performed surgery in very dangerous and difficult conditions. Jerry was assigned to Delta Med, a forward casualty receiving facility in Dong Ha. Soldiers with fragment wounds, lost limbs, and severe blood loss were triaged, treated, and transported to hospital ships for additional care. It was not unusual for incoming rounds of fire to interrupt surgeries. Yet amidst the chaos and confusion, Jerry kept a level head and performed his duties with precision and professionalism. Jerry later became the battalion surgeon for the Rockpile, Ca Lu and Khe Sanh Combat Bases. During this time, his courage was tested when his convoy was ambushed as they were making their way to Ca Lu. Of the 200 men in his unit, 70 were wounded, and 18 were killed. Jerry stabilized the injured while waiting for reinforcements. It was a harrowing experience, but it would not be the last time he risked his life to serve his battalion. Just a month later, his bunker at the Rockpile took a direct hit. Though he was uninjured, ten of his corpsmen were lost. Jerry was ultimately awarded the Bronze Star Medal with a V for Valor for his bravery and devotion to duty. Upon the completion of his distinguished service to our Nation, Jerry returned home and completed his orthopedic residency at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was Wyoming's great fortune that Jerry decided to move his family to Casper to begin his orthopedic practice. I was lucky enough to be invited to join Jerry in his growing practice in Casper, WY, where his family and career thrived. In 1991, Jerry's son Michael deployed with the U.S. Marine Corps as part of Operation Desert Storm. Jerry once again showed his patriotism and desire to serve. He contacted Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and asked to be reactivated so he could provide medical attention to Americans serving overseas. Jerry was commissioned as a lieutenant commander in January 1991, after a 4-day whirlwind of paperwork, physicals, and phone calls. He put his practice aside to once again wear the uniform. He was deployed within 3 weeks to Saudi Arabia and went through the breech with the Marines into Kuwait. Certainly his experiences, both in Vietnam and Desert Storm, shaped his character--and his career. As a fellow in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and a board certified physician, he has devoted his life to providing high quality care and service to his patients. With every surgery he performs, he demonstrates integrity and precision. In addition to his contributions to the medical community, Jerry also volunteers his free time to serve as a teacher, mentor, and friend to our servicemen and women. He is actively involved with veterans' organizations around the country and continues to stay in touch with the Marines who served with him in Desert Storm. Jerry is particularly proud of his work with Semper Fi Odyssey. This is a week-long transition assistance program which helps prepare individuals for life after military service. Participants work in teams and learn valuable skills that help them achieve their personal and professional goals. Jerry has served as a team leader for Semper Fi Odyssey on eight separate occasions and continues to mentor the former servicemembers he met through this work. Needless to say, Jerry is a positive force within the community and we are fortunate for his remarkable contributions. After practicing in Casper for 41 years, the community is honoring this patriot by unveiling the Jerry Behrens, M.D. Orthopedic, Spine, and Surgery Center at the Wyoming Medical Center. Hundreds will gather to pay their respects to this accomplished surgeon. At his side will be his wife Mary, his children Kelly, Mike, and Ingrid, and his two grandchildren Erik and Jasper. Bobbi and I will be honored to stand with him on this special occasion. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Jerry Behrens and thanking him for a life and career devoted to service and the care of others.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2013 Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report. I agree with my colleagues who have spoken about this and who believe that passing this conference report is important for our communities. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as one of the members of the conference committee that came out with this report, I believe the agreement we have today addresses the issues facing the Army Corps of Engineers and facing our country. We have problems in this country with aging infrastructure, we have problems with a lack of transparency, and we have problems with fiscal accountability--all of which impact public health, public safety, as well as the environmental welfare of our communities. As a conferee, I and my staff have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the building, House and Senate, to create a bipartisan product to address these real concerns. We may have our differences on some key issues, but the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting our States. It is about protecting our constituents. It is not about partisan politics. For example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my home State of Wyoming. Predicting floods and being able and better prepared for them is a major component in keeping Wyoming and other western communities safe. That is why we have successfully included language in this bill for the authorization of the Upper Missouri Basin flood and drought monitoring. This program will restore the stream gauges and the snowpack monitors through the Upper Missouri Basin at all elevations. These gauges are used to monitor snow depth and soil moisture to help inform agencies such as the Corps of Engineers as to potential flooding as well as drought in the future. This type of monitoring will help protect communities and will save lives. We also included language in this bill for technical assistance to help rural communities comply with environmental regulations. Rural communities often don't have the expertise or the funding to make important upgrades to their water systems. Dedicated professionals, such as the folks at the Wyoming Rural Water Association, use this funding to go into those communities and provide the critical assistance these people need. We also secured an agreement that establishes a 5-year pilot program known as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This program will allow the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide loans and loan guarantees for flood control, for community water systems, for aging water distribution facilities, and for wastewater infrastructure projects. It also includes language that makes tribes eligible for the loans. As I mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed with the Army Corps of Engineers. That is why we have included language in the conference report to create an Army Corps project deauthorization process. Under this process, the Army Corps would identify projects for deauthorization based on established criteria. Then, after taking public input, they would submit those projects as a single package for an up-or-down vote in the Congress. Many of these projects are on the books and have been on the books for extended periods of time, and they authorize the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars. Yet these are projects that are going nowhere. Under this conference report, the Corps would have to propose a list of the projects to cut. The list would total $18 billion and would be sent to Congress for this up-or-down vote. And $18 billion is more than enough to offset the entire total authorization of this piece of legislation. It truly is time for the Corps of Engineers and for Congress to clean the books, cut the waste, and bring fiscal responsibility to this WRDA process. I wish to thank my colleagues, including Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and former Senator and subcommittee ranking member Max Baucus for the bipartisan process under which this bill was considered. The conference report is not perfect, but I believe we have achieved a product that is substantive, effective, and in the public interests. It is a product that will save lives, maintain the flow of commerce, and protect communities for years to come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this conference report. Once again, I thank the Presiding Officer and my committee colleagues for their willingness to work together on this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week President Obama told a group of campaign donors that people who still talk about his health care law are ``not speaking to the real concerns that people have.'' The President still does not seem to understand that Americans do have real concerns about his health care law. They are not partisan concerns, they are practical concerns. The reason Americans are worried is because the law directly impacts their personal lives, their personal health, and their personal pocketbooks. That is why I have come to the floor week after week to talk about some of the alarming side effects of the President's health care law, and there are many alarming side effects related to the law that people are seeing and dealing with in their everyday lives. I have talked about how this law has increased premiums, how it has cut paychecks for many families, how week after week more people are realizing that they are suffering as a result of the law. They are not helped by the law but are suffering as victims of the President's law. Today I wish to talk about another costly side effect of the law: the massive amount of taxpayer dollars that continues to be wasted under the law. For example, KMOV, a television station in St. Louis, recently reported about a call center in Missouri that processes paper applications for insurance in the State exchanges. Remember, the applications were supposed to be handled on a Web site, so they should not need a call center handling very many paper applications, but it doesn't seem to matter. The company got a contract for $1.2 billion. According to the report, there are 1,800 employees. What are these people doing who are taking all of this money? It turns out a lot of them are not doing very much. They are being paid with hard-earned taxpayer dollars and they are not doing very much. One employee said, ``There are some weeks that a data entry person would not process an application''--weeks, and not a single application. They are just sitting there and looking at their computers. The report says some of them are playing Pictionary or 20 Questions and collecting paychecks funded by the taxpayers. Another former employee told the Associated Press: ``It was like stealing money from people.'' It was like stealing money from people. It is not just happening in Missouri. Another TV station, KOLR, found a call center run by the same company--this one is in Arkansas--and reported that the same thing that is happening in St. Louis, MO, is happening in Arkansas. One employee told the station that he has been there 6 months--6 months and getting paid for full-time work--and has processed a total of 40 applications. To make matters worse, we have learned of another clear way Washington is wasting taxpayer dollars while implementing the law. Over the weekend the Washington Post reported that Federal health care subsidies may be too high or to low for 1 million people. The headline says: ``Health payouts may be wrong. Subsidies too high or [too] low for 1 million. Government flags errors but can't fix them yet.'' Incredible incompetence on the part of this administration. There is mismanagement like people have never seen before in this country. The Post reported: The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve. These are the subsidies some people get to help pay for their insurance in the government exchanges. It turns out that the computer system Washington built to make sure it gave the right subsidies--well, guess what. It doesn't work. When the healthcare.gov Web site crashed last fall, the Obama administration scrambled to patch and duct tape it back together. But according to the article, behind the scenes, important aspects of the Web site remain defective or unfinished. The article goes on: The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans in the new federal insurance marketplace and has been unable so far to fix the errors, according to internal documents and three people familiar with the situation. The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve. Apparently the government can't fix it and the Web site can't be fixed. So what do they do? These people are sending in information, and, according to this article, ``piles of unprocessed `proof' documents are sitting in a federal contractor's Kentucky office, and the government continues to pay insurance subsidies that may be too generous . . .'' The inability to make certain the government is paying correct subsidies is a legacy of computer troubles that crippled last fall's launch of the Obama health care law. So again we see more waste of taxpayer dollars and more reasons for Americans to have very real concerns about the law. Just this past week the President of the United States told donors: Oh, not speaking to the real concerns that people have. The President of the United States is wrong. The American people have real concerns about these components of the health care law. President Obama said to the Democrats in this very body: Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. I want to see one of the Democrats stand and defend what I have just talked about and be proud of what I just talked about. The President says you should, so where are you right now? Not one of them is here to make that defense or to stand proud about this law. It is hard to imagine that my colleagues can possibly be proud of a law that pays people to do nothing all day long. Can they possibly be proud of a law that awards large subsidies for people who don't qualify for them? Are the Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that continue to be wasted every day? There is no end in sight and there is no effort to stop this. After all, how does that provide a fair shot for everyone? Isn't that what the promises of the President are? He said: I want a fair shot for everyone. How does all of this actually help with this wasted money? How does that help anybody get better health care? Millions and millions of dollars are being wasted to pay people to sit around and play computer games. Millions more are on Web sites designed in States that have been basically called broken, dysfunctional, crippled--you name it, they are not working. The FBI is doing an investigation about some of these reports. How does that give anybody better health care--all these wasted taxpayer dollars. The people know what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted better access to quality, affordable care. Let's think about what people want with health care reform. They want access, they want affordable care, they want choices--which they have been denied under this President's health care law--and they want quality. That is the kind of fair shot they wanted, but it is not what they got from the President's health care law. Republicans have offered a patient-centered approach that would solve the biggest problems families face, such as access to care, cost of care, quality of care, and choice. That means ideas such as allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy insurance more cheaply for their employees. That gives small businesses and the employees working there a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that actually works for them and their families, not what President Obama says is best for them. If I had to say who has the best chance of knowing what is best for a family, I would say it is likely the family and not President Obama and the Democrats who passed this law. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for them and best for their families. These are just a couple of the solutions Republicans have offered to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot--health care reform that gives patients the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without the ongoing harmful, expensive side effects we are seeing every day with the President's health care law. Thank you. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as my colleague from Indiana has, because the same things he is hearing about at home in Indiana--stories from real people and how their lives have been impacted by the health care law--are stories I am hearing at home every weekend in Wyoming. I think it is astonishing that the majority leader would come to the floor of the Senate and say these stories we are coming to the floor with are made up, he said, out of whole cloth. These are real people in our communities who have been impacted by the health care law in ways that have been very detrimental to their lives, their livelihood. People have had their hours cut. Their take-home pay is less. They are finding they are having to pay a lot more for insurance. A lot of times it is insurance they don't really want or need or will ever use but the President says they have to buy. They have lost policies that have worked well for them. I got a recent email from a gentleman, a family in Powell, WY, a community in Park County. He writes: Now that ObamaCare has been deemed to be the most successful government program of all time, let me tell you what it has done for retired middle-class Wyoming citizens like myself. Of course, he said he was not serious when he said ``the most successful government program of all time.'' He probably heard the President talking about it. He probably heard the President of the United States tell Democrats who voted for this health care law to forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. I haven't heard Members who voted for this actually come to the floor to any degree to forcefully defend and be proud of the law because they know the side effects of the law have been devastating--devastating to families, devastating to people and their paychecks, and devastating to health care in this country. So back to what my constituent from Powell, WY, said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 a month. The President said: Oh, no, premiums will drop by $2,500 a year. This gentleman said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 per month, scheduled to go to at least $2,000 or more per month in July--in parentheses, ``unbelievable.'' He then says: Middle-class citizens like my wife and myself, not qualifying for ObamaCare subsidies, having to consider becoming lawbreakers by forgoing health insurance for ourselves or at least one of us--in parentheses, ``probably myself because I am the healthier of the two''--and paying the fine. He then said: If we do No. 2 above--about disobeying the law and paying the fine--we will have to look into seeking cheaper care outside the United States, probably Mexico, for serious problems. Is that what the President of the United States intended, to have people seek care in Mexico because they can't afford the Obama health care law and the mandates and all of the insurance that they don't need, don't want, won't use, and can't afford? It is not what the President promised the American people. He said if they like what they have they can keep it. But, of course, that was deemed the lie of the year. So I guess that is how the American people view the President of the United States now and can't really consider his comments to be credible. So when he says forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law, I think the American people realize that the President has sold the law to them under false promises and the Democrats are clearly not standing up and defending what they know is hurting their constituents. The President is in his bubble, and he hears only what he wants to hear. But I think Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, who go home and listen to people, know these stories are true, unlike what the majority leader says--that they are just made up. The gentleman goes on to say: I could look into residence in another State to see if health care insurance is available cheaper. I don't know if it is or not, but I understand that Wyoming has the highest or near highest health insurance premiums. Then he ends by saying: Is this what Obama and the Federal Government consider fair? The President goes on TV and says that everybody ought to have a fair shot. Is this what the President of the United States considers fair? Is this what he means by a fair shot? People all across the country are going to be asking themselves that question as they take a look at the impact of this health care law on their own lives, their own families, the ability to keep their doctors. We know many people have lost the doctor they like in the sense that they can't go to that doctor. They know they can't go to the same hospital. We know many were not able to keep the insurance they had. We know many have had hours cut. In an effort to try to help people who didn't have insurance, I think the President of the United States and Democrats should not have hurt so many individuals across the country, so many people who already had insurance. There may be people who are newly insured, but there are also people who are newly uninsured, and it is because of the President's health care law. Are there side effects? You better believe it. They are harmful. They are costly. Many families have been devastated by the health care law. I have another letter from a family in Lingle, WY. This is somebody who knows I am a doctor, knows my record of treating patients around Wyoming and working with families all across the State. She said: I know you're interested in the number of people who are uninsured after the rollout of the ACA. She said: My husband and I started investigating the ACA in October. The Presiding Officer will remember they opened the exchanges in October. The President, right before that, said it was going to be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill. She said: So we started investigating in October, and we were finally able to establish an account in March. That is what the American people think about the capability of this government and this administration. You start working on something in October, and you finally establish an account in March because of the incompetence of a bureaucracy and an administration that says one thing, does another, promises something, and delivers something very different. She said: We found that our premiums would be one-third of our annual income--one-third of our annual income--with a $6,000 copay and a $12,000 deductible. Those are the numbers--one-third of their annual income, a $6,000 copay, a $12,000 deductible--and the majority leader comes to the floor and says we are making this stuff up. These are letters from our constituents, people who live in our States, people whom we see on weekends when we go home. She goes on to say: We have been uninsured for 7 years due to the costs, which we are told is due to our age, even though we are in good health. So as of today we are still uninsured. So they started in October, finally established an account in March, and as of the date this was written in April, they were still uninsured. She said: We don't have any idea what will happen if one of us gets sick or has an accident. How will we pay the bills? Then she finishes by saying: Keep fighting for the people of Wyoming. As a doctor, you know what a precarious position we are in. I wish the President of the United States and the majority leader would realize what a precarious position they have placed the American public in--an American public who knew what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is not what they got. They got more mandates, more expensive care, higher deductibles, higher copays. Many people had their policies canceled. We know with the 30-hour work rule communities are cutting the hours of workers so their take-home pay goes down. We are not talking about businesses here, although it is happening in the business world as well. It is also happening in communities--school districts that are saying: Well, we are going to have to cut the hours of substitute teachers, we are going to have to cut the hours of the school bus drivers, of the coaches, of a number of part-time workers. Why? Because of the health care law. These are side effects of the law. They are harmful. They are expensive. They have an impact on people's lives to a point that I think the President wants to ignore because the President is hoping people on his side of the aisle will forcefully defend and be proud of a law that there is little to be proud of that really is not able to be defended because the implications of the side effects have been devastating to many, and especially to Americans who have gotten their insurance canceled and find their only choice is more expensive insurance, higher copays, and higher deductibles. But for families all across the country, when a mother finds she cannot take her child to that pediatrician--the one who has known that child since the baby was born--now, because of the health care law, she cannot take her child to that pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their community; they have to drive distances, instead, because of the health care law, which was intended to help people but has ended up hurting, in my opinion, more people than it has helped. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to address remarks made by the majority leader. Just yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and said the Republicans were ``going quiet'' on health care. Senator Reid said ObamaCare is no longer high on the Republicans' radar screen. Yesterday I said that it was certainly still very high on my radar screen and that Republicans have every intention of continuing to focus on the Democrats' health care law and all of its harmful side effects. Americans all across the country have been feeling those damaging side effects of the President's health care law, and the side effects are getting worse. Hard-working middle-class families who didn't want this health care law in the first place are facing higher premiums. They are facing smaller paychecks. They are facing fewer jobs, fewer doctors, and many other problems as a result specifically of the President's health care law. Today I want to talk about another side effect of the law; that is, the millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars that have been absolutely wasted by bureaucrats who set up State health insurance exchanges that have failed. Under the health care law, States could choose to set up their own exchange or to use the Federal exchange. States got Federal grants to help plan which one they would do. If a State decided to set up its own exchange, it got even more money from Washington to cover the costs. So how much money are we talking about? Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Government has awarded grants of over $7.4 billion as of this March. People all across the country know the Federal exchange was an absolute train wreck when it was launched. In one State after another, the State exchanges also have been collapsing and costing taxpayers a fortune. Now some of those States have absolutely given up. They have decided they want to scrap their own systems and go into the Federal exchange after all--an option they had at first, but they decided to go first to the State exchange and now it has failed. What they have done is they have spent a lot of taxpayer money--money Washington sent to them. Where is the money? The money is gone. Their system doesn't work, and now what they want to do is have a fresh start. President Obama says Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I want to see where the people are now coming to the floor to forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law. I ask the President--is he proud that these ObamaCare exchanges are failing all across the country? Are Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that we now know have been wasted? Democrats don't want to talk about the law's expensive side effects or about the Americans harmed by the law. Republicans have been offering solutions. Today Senator Hatch and I are introducing legislation that would address these State failures and protect taxpayers. After all, that is what Americans want. They want accountability for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill, called the State Exchange Accountability Act, says that if the State got Federal money to set up its own exchange and later decided to give up and move back on to the Federal exchange, it would have to pay back the money. It is that simple. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for the mistakes of incompetent State bureaucrats who couldn't set up a working health care exchange. States would have 10 years to pay back the grants. They would have to pay them back in full. I know State budgets are tight, so they wouldn't have to come up with the whole amount all at once. They would pay back 10 percent of the total each year for the next 10 years. These States that walk away from their exchanges are conceding that they wasted the money they received, and it is only fair that these States should repay the American taxpayers. The failure of these exchanges and the money squandered on them was a side effect of the health care law. Democrats told States they could set up these exchanges and Washington would pay the bill. So some States didn't really care what it cost. They didn't care if the work was being done well or even done at all. As far as they were concerned, don't worry, whether it works or not it is somebody else's money. Well, this bill I am introducing today tells these State bureaucracies that it is time for them to care about the money they have wasted. This won't fix all of the harmful side effects the Democrats created with the health care law, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do. If you want a sense of how big the problem is, look at an article that ran in Politico on Monday this week. The headline is ``Four States in a Fix Over Their Troubled Exchanges.'' The article talks about four State exchanges that basically embraced ObamaCare: Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon. It says that these four State exchanges spent at least $474 million and ``are now in shambles.'' Look at it--Maryland, $118 million; Massachusetts, $57 million; Nevada, $51 million; for Oregon, $248 million of taxpayer money from around the country was sent to Oregon for programs that are now in shambles. So now some of these States want even more money to fix what has gone wrong in the first place. According to Politico, Maryland spent $118 million to set up its own exchange, and State officials did such a bad job that they are now planning to scrap the whole thing and use software from Connecticut's exchange. Massachusetts spent $57 million. Politico called the program in Massachusetts ``fatally crippled.'' Nevada spent $51 million. Politico says salvaging that exchange ``would be a huge feat.'' Oregon spent $248 million to set up its own exchange. It was such a spectacular failure that CNBC ran a headline on May 5 stating ``FBI probing Oregon's ObamaCare exchange.'' The FBI is probing the exchange. The State plans to use the Federal exchange from now on, getting rid of their State exchange. That is the kind of double-dipping our bill goes after. Why should Democrats in Washington, DC, be telling taxpayers across America that they have to pay for the failures of State officials in Massachusetts, Nevada, Maryland, Oregon, and other States that may find themselves in the same situation? Democrats have said and the President continues to say that he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Are Americans from other States who have to pay higher taxes because of these failed exchanges getting a fair shot? Well, they are not. Our bill will start to give a fair shot to Americans who don't want to pay twice to bail out incompetent State bureaucrats. It will give a fair shot to Americans who want to reclaim some of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This is just one of many ideas Republicans have offered and will continue to offer to create a patient-centered approach to health care. The plans we have offered will solve the biggest problems families face, which is the cost of care and access to care, problems that seem to have been ignored when Democrats forced this law through Congress. That means measures that would allow small businesses to pull together in order to buy health insurance for employees. Small businesses deserve a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that works for them and their families--not what the government says is best for them but what they say is best for themselves and their families. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for themselves and their families. It means adequately funding State high- risk pools that help people get insurance--people who have disease, people who are sick--without raising the costs for healthier people. These are just a few of the solutions Republicans have offered and continue to offer to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot, health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without all of the harmful and expensive ObamaCare side effects.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to address remarks made by the majority leader. Just yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and said the Republicans were ``going quiet'' on health care. Senator Reid said ObamaCare is no longer high on the Republicans' radar screen. Yesterday I said that it was certainly still very high on my radar screen and that Republicans have every intention of continuing to focus on the Democrats' health care law and all of its harmful side effects. Americans all across the country have been feeling those damaging side effects of the President's health care law, and the side effects are getting worse. Hard-working middle-class families who didn't want this health care law in the first place are facing higher premiums. They are facing smaller paychecks. They are facing fewer jobs, fewer doctors, and many other problems as a result specifically of the President's health care law. Today I want to talk about another side effect of the law; that is, the millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars that have been absolutely wasted by bureaucrats who set up State health insurance exchanges that have failed. Under the health care law, States could choose to set up their own exchange or to use the Federal exchange. States got Federal grants to help plan which one they would do. If a State decided to set up its own exchange, it got even more money from Washington to cover the costs. So how much money are we talking about? Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Government has awarded grants of over $7.4 billion as of this March. People all across the country know the Federal exchange was an absolute train wreck when it was launched. In one State after another, the State exchanges also have been collapsing and costing taxpayers a fortune. Now some of those States have absolutely given up. They have decided they want to scrap their own systems and go into the Federal exchange after all--an option they had at first, but they decided to go first to the State exchange and now it has failed. What they have done is they have spent a lot of taxpayer money--money Washington sent to them. Where is the money? The money is gone. Their system doesn't work, and now what they want to do is have a fresh start. President Obama says Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I want to see where the people are now coming to the floor to forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law. I ask the President--is he proud that these ObamaCare exchanges are failing all across the country? Are Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that we now know have been wasted? Democrats don't want to talk about the law's expensive side effects or about the Americans harmed by the law. Republicans have been offering solutions. Today Senator Hatch and I are introducing legislation that would address these State failures and protect taxpayers. After all, that is what Americans want. They want accountability for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill, called the State Exchange Accountability Act, says that if the State got Federal money to set up its own exchange and later decided to give up and move back on to the Federal exchange, it would have to pay back the money. It is that simple. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for the mistakes of incompetent State bureaucrats who couldn't set up a working health care exchange. States would have 10 years to pay back the grants. They would have to pay them back in full. I know State budgets are tight, so they wouldn't have to come up with the whole amount all at once. They would pay back 10 percent of the total each year for the next 10 years. These States that walk away from their exchanges are conceding that they wasted the money they received, and it is only fair that these States should repay the American taxpayers. The failure of these exchanges and the money squandered on them was a side effect of the health care law. Democrats told States they could set up these exchanges and Washington would pay the bill. So some States didn't really care what it cost. They didn't care if the work was being done well or even done at all. As far as they were concerned, don't worry, whether it works or not it is somebody else's money. Well, this bill I am introducing today tells these State bureaucracies that it is time for them to care about the money they have wasted. This won't fix all of the harmful side effects the Democrats created with the health care law, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do. If you want a sense of how big the problem is, look at an article that ran in Politico on Monday this week. The headline is ``Four States in a Fix Over Their Troubled Exchanges.'' The article talks about four State exchanges that basically embraced ObamaCare: Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon. It says that these four State exchanges spent at least $474 million and ``are now in shambles.'' Look at it--Maryland, $118 million; Massachusetts, $57 million; Nevada, $51 million; for Oregon, $248 million of taxpayer money from around the country was sent to Oregon for programs that are now in shambles. So now some of these States want even more money to fix what has gone wrong in the first place. According to Politico, Maryland spent $118 million to set up its own exchange, and State officials did such a bad job that they are now planning to scrap the whole thing and use software from Connecticut's exchange. Massachusetts spent $57 million. Politico called the program in Massachusetts ``fatally crippled.'' Nevada spent $51 million. Politico says salvaging that exchange ``would be a huge feat.'' Oregon spent $248 million to set up its own exchange. It was such a spectacular failure that CNBC ran a headline on May 5 stating ``FBI probing Oregon's ObamaCare exchange.'' The FBI is probing the exchange. The State plans to use the Federal exchange from now on, getting rid of their State exchange. That is the kind of double-dipping our bill goes after. Why should Democrats in Washington, DC, be telling taxpayers across America that they have to pay for the failures of State officials in Massachusetts, Nevada, Maryland, Oregon, and other States that may find themselves in the same situation? Democrats have said and the President continues to say that he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Are Americans from other States who have to pay higher taxes because of these failed exchanges getting a fair shot? Well, they are not. Our bill will start to give a fair shot to Americans who don't want to pay twice to bail out incompetent State bureaucrats. It will give a fair shot to Americans who want to reclaim some of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This is just one of many ideas Republicans have offered and will continue to offer to create a patient-centered approach to health care. The plans we have offered will solve the biggest problems families face, which is the cost of care and access to care, problems that seem to have been ignored when Democrats forced this law through Congress. That means measures that would allow small businesses to pull together in order to buy health insurance for employees. Small businesses deserve a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that works for them and their families--not what the government says is best for them but what they say is best for themselves and their families. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for themselves and their families. It means adequately funding State high- risk pools that help people get insurance--people who have disease, people who are sick--without raising the costs for healthier people. These are just a few of the solutions Republicans have offered and continue to offer to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot, health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without all of the harmful and expensive ObamaCare side effects.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today having heard the majority leader open this morning's session by talking somewhat about the health care law. He was referring to a headline that said Republicans were going quiet on health care. He then went on to say that ObamaCare is no longer very high on their radar screen. I will say, as a doctor and someone who goes home every weekend to Wyoming, this issue of people's health care--something very important to them--continues to be high on my screen and high on the radar screen of Americans all across the country because we are seeing all across the country that the President's promises have been broken. People can't keep what they had if they liked it. People are losing their doctors. There are many ObamaCare side effects, and one doesn't have to go very far today to see on the front page of the New York Times this morning an article related to the President's promises. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital. But in this front-page article, the first paragraph says: In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days, one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network--or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want. So the Senate majority leader may not want this to be a major issue in the minds of the American public, but it is because their health care is so personal. Americans hate to see taxpayer dollars wasted, but they are seeing it all across the country. I would note an article in Politico: ``474M for 4 failed Obamacare exchanges.'' Money completely wasted--taxpayer dollars--and didn't help patients needing care. The other day, The Hill: Cover Oregon flops. ``FBI looking into Oregon's O-Care rollout.'' There are huge problems with waste. There is another article about problems in Colorado and problems with their exchange, and yet the story out today--what happened with the exchange in Colorado? ``Outrage over raise for Colorado health exchange CEO.'' So the impacts are felt all around the country. And it is interesting to hear the Senate majority leader make his comments at a time when his hometown newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had a headline story on May 4, 2014: ``Own a small business? Brace for Obamacare Pain.'' Local business owners might be hoping the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandates cover sticker shock. The law's employer coverage mandate doesn't take effect until 2015, but early plan renewals are starting to roll in. And for some businesses, the premium jumps are positively painful. So I come to the floor having heard the majority leader's comments. I will have more to say about this later, as I see my colleague from the other side of the aisle has come to speak. But as one Senator and a physician and someone intimately concerned about the care the American public receives, their ability to get care--not empty coverage but quality, available care--this Senator, in spite of what the majority leader may say, is not going quiet on health care. It continues to be very high on my radar screen, as it is high on the radar screen of Americans who have been told many things by the President of the United States that turned out not to be true. That is why week after week I am going to continue coming to the floor to talk about the side effects of a health care law that is hurting patients in terms of keeping their doctor, lower costs--they are seeing higher costs--not being able to keep their hospital, and paychecks shrinking because of the health care law. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from Oregon, and I appreciate the opportunity to make reference to the majority leader's comments. Republicans--and certainly this Senator--are not going quiet on health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the health care law. I have visited with people in my home State of Wyoming and people from around the country who come to Washington, and many of them want to talk about the health care law and the side effects of the health care law. They want to talk about the health care law that the Democrats voted for unanimously in this body and Democrats on the other side of this building voted for overwhelmingly. A little earlier today, one of my colleagues who is a supporter of the law came to the floor to say it is working and everything is great. I am here to say it is not and to dispute some of the comments made by my colleague because I am hearing from people whose care has been affected. Their lives have been affected, the ability to keep their doctor has been affected, and the cost of their care and the cost of their insurance has gone up. Many have had their insurance canceled all because of the health care law. One of the things the President promised the American people with the health care law--he said it would lower the cost of care, and people's premiums would go down $2,500 per family. He said he wanted to go after this because health care spending was too high in the country, and the spending was going up. Yet we had a colleague say that the health care law is a success. On May 5, just a few days ago, USA Today had a headline that said ``Health Spending Up Most Since '80.'' Health spending is up. The President said it was going to go down because of his law, but it is up the most since 1980. The article says: Health care spending rose at the fastest pace since 1980 during the first three months of the year . . . They say that ``Health care spending climbed at a 9.9% annual rate last quarter''--almost 10 percent. That is not what President Obama told the American people would happen. I would point out that this is a drastic increase in spending when the health care law was supposed to do just the opposite. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports higher spending in hospitals--the largest rise since the 1980's third-quarter. It is astonishing when the President promises the American people one thing and delivers another. In this same Monday USA Today there is a Pew Research Center poll which is interesting. When you read about this, it says: The poll of 1,501 adults, including 1,162 registered voters, was taken April 23-27 . . . Other findings help explain the Democrats' woes. By more than 2-1, Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. They remain downbeat about the economy. They aren't persuaded that the Affordable Care Act is going to help them and their families. Even the president's supporters worry he is a political liability for fellow Democrats. I come to the floor today as a doctor who has taken care of patients for 25 years in Wyoming, and my concern with health care is actually ``care.'' The President became fixated, as did the Democrats, on the word ``coverage.'' Coverage doesn't actually make sure that people get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what people wanted with the health care law. They don't want what was pushed down their throats by the Democrats in the House and the Senate who said they knew better than the American people. I find it fascinating to see that in States run by Democrats around the country--Maryland, Oregon, and Massachusetts--which have had the exchanges and have given up. They have said, no, our State exchanges don't work and can't work. Massachusetts has been in play for a number of years, and they had to shut it down and turn it over to the Federal Government because of the mandates and complexities of the health care law--hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to care for people. It should have gone to help people. Instead it has gone to consultants and computer companies. It is not helping people. It is wasted. Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland have given up. They said: We can't even live under this health care law's mandates. Our computer systems don't work. So let's turn it over to Washington. The American people are fed up with turning things over to Washington. It was interesting to hear my colleague from Connecticut talk about some of the concerns and stories that we are sharing with the American people about folks losing their jobs, part of their pay, and bringing home smaller paychecks as a result of fewer hours at work. I would like to share a situation that is now happening in Iowa. It was reported a couple of weeks ago in the Ottumwa Courier. Iowa is a State where we have a Democratic Senator from Iowa who is a very active supporter of the health care law. He was on the floor day after day about how wonderful this health care law was during the debate. Let's talk about what is happening in one community in that Senator's home State in Eddyville. It says: Faced with a nearly $138,000 increase in insurance costs the Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont School Board-- We are not talking about a business here; we are talking about a community school board-- this week approved reducing the hours of all para-educators from about 37 to just 29 hours per week to avoid the requirements of the National Health Care Act. That is a side effect of the Obama health care law that every Democrat in this Chamber voted for when that came up for a vote. So they had some meetings. The article goes on and says: In February, Superintendent Dean Cook recommended cutting 12 special education para-educators and three more working as librarians. My colleague from Connecticut said none of this is happening and that these are just incidental stories; don't pay attention to them. The article goes on to say: However, this week his recommendation instead was a choice of either cutting eight para-educators or to reduce the hours of all of para-educators (around 25 to 28 employees), for the 2013-14 school year. One of the board members ``opted to reduce hours instead of cutting jobs.'' This is a tough situation to put a school board in--reducing hours and cutting jobs. The board member noted: It just gets pretty tight when we have cut paras in the past. Those people play key roles in running the schools. The article goes on: In fact, several teachers spoke to or wrote letters to the board, providing a detailed account of the jobs that para- educators perform, urging the board not to cut these positions. The article quotes one of the members of the board, Gay Murphy, who said: ``I feel very frustrated that our hands are tied with the health care act.'' Fascinating. The board member has the same last name as the Senator who was down here on the floor saying: Oh, no; pay no attention to these important stories. The article goes on to say that Gay Murphy ``asked that employees' hours be cut by working less days instead of less hours per day''--but still cut the hours under the President's health care law--``so it would be easier for employees to get a second job if needed.'' The President's health care law is cutting people's hours, and they are trying to find ways to make it easier for them to get a second job because their paychecks are being cut. Their take-home pay is being cut because of this health care law. One other board member ``noted that quality employees may not stick around for a 29-hour per week job and that special education students have a need for more consistency that comes with full-time employees.'' This is a sad story, and it is happening in communities all across the country. I think it is not a surprise that Republicans continue to come to the floor to say there are huge side effects of the health care law, and for some people who may have been helped by the law, many people are being hurt, and it is happening all across the country. That is why when I heard my colleague mention on the floor that people are getting used to it or there is an acceptance of the health care law, I would just point out an article in the Washington Post: Poll: Obamacare hits new low. A new poll shows the public's opposition to Obamacare has never been higher. The Pew Research Center poll shows disapproval of the law hitting a new high of 55 percent. It comes on the heels of several polls last week that showed the law had very little, if any, bump after signups on the health care exchanges exceeded the goals. So here we are, an all-time low for approval of a health care law, and the reason is because people's lives have been impacted. They have been hurt by this health care law. There are side effects of the law. People who were promised they would be able to keep the coverage they had--millions lost that coverage. They were told they could keep their doctor if they wanted to keep their doctor, and many Americans lost their doctor. They were told the cost of their insurance would go down and it has instead gone up. They are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and now people's paychecks are shrinking and their take- home pay is less because of a health care law that remains very unpopular. That is why I felt compelled to come to the floor to point out to the American people, and to this body, that comments made previously by a colleague were not, at least in my opinion, based on what I have seen, heard, and read, consistent with the real impacts of this health care law and the impacts on patients, on providers, and on taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week members of both parties have offered a number of energy-related amendments to the pending bill. The minority leader has even said he is willing to limit the number of amendments to five--five energy-related amendments--and the majority leader continues to say no. I am not sure what the majority leader is afraid of in terms of allowing people to vote. People come to the Senate and they are expected to speak up and tell people their positions on various issues. One of the amendments I had hoped to offer today expedites liquefied natural gas exports. The magazine The Economist recently published an article with the headline: ``The petro-state of America: The energy boom is good for America and the world. It would be nice if Barack Obama helped a bit.'' The article explains that the process for obtaining permits to export liquefied natural gas from the United States is insanely slow. This isn't an exaggeration. In over 3\1/2\ years, the administration has approved only seven applications to export LNG. The administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. Fourteen have been pending for more than a year, and some have been pending for more than 2 years. These administration delays are unacceptable. The excuses have run out. We have introduced legislation. LNG exports are a critical component of stopping Russian aggression against our key allies and strategic partners. Nine of our NATO allies import 40 percent or more of their natural gas from Russia. Four of our NATO allies import 100 percent of their natural gas from Russia. These are our allies. Yet they are heavily dependent on Russia for their energy. LNG exports would help our NATO allies as well as our strategic partners and allow them to free themselves from Russian energy. That is why our NATO allies are calling on us--on Congress--and the United States to expedite these LNG exports. These will give our allies an alternative supplier of natural gas and enable them to resist Russia's aggression. It is going to be an added benefit for our country in terms of creating thousands of good-paying jobs here in the United States. As the Economist explained, LNG exports ``could generate tankerloads of cash'' for America. The exports will create jobs in gasfields in Wyoming, steel mills in the Midwest, and at our Nation's ports. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Martha Crosby for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Martha is from Richmond, VA. She is a recent graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, where she earned a degree in political science, concentration in politics and government. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last few months. I thank Martha for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Adam Boyd for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Adam is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. He is also a recent graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he earned a degree in French. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts during his time in my office. I thank Adam for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Emily Smithson for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Emily is from San Marcos, CA. She is a recent graduate of Brigham Young University-Hawaii, where she earned a degree in political science and history. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts during her time in my office. I thank Emily for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Matthew Spenny for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Matthew is from Laramie, WY, and is and a graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he earned a degree in communication and journalism. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I thank Matthew for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.