John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk once more about the negative side effects of the President's health care law. President Obama has been spiking the football over the number of people who he says have actually signed up for insurance through his exchanges. He also said that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. He has had nothing to say to the Americans who are seeing their premiums increase. This Washington mandate insurance is loaded up with so many specific mandates that unless you get a massive taxpayer subsidy, it is just not affordable for many families across this country. For some people the insurance gets even more expensive, even less affordable, depending specifically on where you live. Insurance companies used to base your premiums on a lot of different factors, like how likely you were to use insurance, and different things specific to how you would use medical services. The Obama health care law took away some of that and replaced it with what they call a community rating. Now there are only a few factors that can be used to set people's premiums, and where you actually live is one of those. Your premiums used to be based on you, but now they are based on your neighbors and how likely your neighbors are to use their own health insurance. What we are seeing is all across the country people are paying more specifically because of where they live. The Associated Press ran a story on this last month. The headline was ``Rural residents confront higher health care costs.'' The Associated Press quoted a rancher in Colorado whose premiums had jumped 50 percent--to about $1,800 a month. The rancher said: We've gone from letting the insurance companies use a pre- existing medical condition to jack up rates, to having a pre- existing ZIP code being the reason health insurance is unaffordable. As this rancher said, ``It's just wrong.'' I agree, so I looked into this, and here is what I found. Some of the lines are drawn so that people just down the road or even people on different sides of the street can pay wildly different premiums. These are people of exactly the same age, and these are people who are buying the lowest-cost silver plan. The President likes to talk about income inequality, but the President has created a new kind of insurance inequality. It is not only rural areas like where that rancher lives in Colorado. In Louisiana in one community the premium for the lowest-cost silver plan in the ObamaCare exchange for a 40-year-old person who doesn't get a subsidy would be $255 a month. But if you live right across the street--right across the street--the premium for that same person, same age, same lowest-cost silver plan, would be $311 a month--22 percent higher, $56 more a month, just because you live on one side of the street instead of the other side of the street, under the President's health care law. That is $672 a year. That was Louisiana. Now let's take a look at North Carolina, with the same situation. If you live on that side of the line, if your ranch house or farm house is over there, it is $263 a month. Just down the road, the other side of the line, it is $319 a month. Again, it is $56 more a month or $672 more a year for the same individual. All they would have to do is move from that side to this side and they would either save or pay that much more. It is 21 percent more expensive on one side than the other. Is this fair? The Democrats talk about fairness all the time. Democratic Senators have come to the floor to talk about giving everybody a fair shot. Do those Democrats who passed this health care law, who voted for the law, think that in that county in North Carolina they are getting a fair shot depending on which side of the line they live? Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that they get this fair shot on either side of the line? Does President Obama believe that these people in North Carolina or Louisiana are getting a fair shot? Why did the Democrats in Washington create a law that penalizes people based on on which side of the street they live? Here is another example--Arkansas. Here we have an area, one side of the line or the other. On this side of the line it is $263 per month and on this side $294 a month--same age, same situation, no matter which of side of the line you live on--$31 a month more expensive. Are those people in Arkansas getting a fair shot from the President's health care law? For too many people in places such as Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the costs of the President's health care law are unfair and are too high. Sure, there are some people who are being helped, but there are a lot of people who are being hurt by the President's health care law, people who are feeling the negative side effects of the law. Why don't Democrats admit this? Why don't they admit that the health care law is not giving people a fair shot? The President says: Forcefully defend and be proud. Why aren't the Democrats in this Senate who passed this law coming to the floor to defend the fact that for millions of people in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Colorado, and all across America, the premiums are too high. The health care law is too expensive for families, and it is also too expensive for a lot of employers. There was an article in the Denver Post last week entitled: ``Health law presents options, challenges for Colorado's small businesses.'' The article tells the story of a small business in Denver that sells cardboard boxes. According to the article, the owner of this business has offered insurance to his workers for three decades. To get a policy that meets the new mandates of the President's health care law was going to cost 50 percent more than they had been paying in the past. The article says, ``About half of small businesses in Colorado are seeing double-digit premium increases'' because of the law. Double-digit premium increases are not what Democrats promised from their health care law, and it is not what the American people wanted. People wanted something very simple from health care reform. They wanted better access to quality, affordable care. Instead, Democrats gave Americans higher costs and unequal treatment. It is not a fair shot. It is not what American people wanted, what they needed, and it isn't working. Americans don't need a law that Democrats voted for without ever reading it, and it is a law that raises their premiums, a law that Nancy Pelosi said: Hey, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Republicans have offered a patient-centered approach that would solve the biggest problems facing families: the cost of care, access to care, and ownership of their policies. That means allowing small businesses to pool resources in order to buy health insurance for their employees. It means letting people shop for health insurance in other States and buy what is actually best for them and their families. It means reforming our medical liability system to give patients fair compensation for tragic mistakes, while ending junk lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone. It means adequately funding State high-risk pools that help sick people get insurance without raising costs for healthier individuals. These are just a few solutions Republicans have offered, just a few of the things that we will do 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 a lower cost without all the negative side effects. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in order to offer amendment No. 2981, I move to table the Reid amendment No. 3025. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to this bill while the majority leader's amendments and motions are pending?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, today President Obama is doing televised events talking about climate change. According to press reports, the President is ready to pivot to the environment as an issue. Well, I also want to talk about environmental stewardship today. I want to talk about what is going on in some of our States, where they are actually doing something, not just talking about it. Today the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses are issuing a new report called ``Washington Gets it Wrong--States Get it Right.'' The report shows how regulations imposed by Washington are undermining the work being done at the State level to manage our lands, our natural resources, and to protect our air and water. More often than not, Washington regulations and one-size-fits-all mandates do get it wrong. In the West we take very seriously our commitment to ensuring the health and viability of land, wildlife, and the environment. That is at both the local and the State levels. Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior like to think of themselves as the ultimate protectors of our Nation's skies and open spaces. But we have seen time and time again that the work being done at the State level is more reasonable, more effective, and certainly less heavyhanded. Thousands of people are working across the West to protect their communities. These are people who live in the West, not bureaucrats in Washington offices. Nobody is better qualified than the folks who actually live in the West, because they actually walk the land and breathe the air--the land and the air they are trying to protect. So our report looks at the work being done by State agencies to protect not just the land they live and work on but also the people who rely on the health and safety of that land. As this report demonstrates, extreme regulations imposed by Washington undermine the work being done at the State level, whether it is to manage lands and natural resources, protect air and water, or conserve species. When we look at the work of these State agencies--as the Western Caucuses have done in this report--it is clear that when it comes to conservation and environmental efforts, the States do get it right. More often than not, Washington gets it wrong. It is time for Washington to stop its overreaching regulations and the continual drip, drip, drip of mandates. It is time for Washington to stop getting it wrong and start recognizing how States get it right. The report has details about specific things different States are doing, but I want to mention four categories where States are leading the way when it comes to environmental stewardship. The first is protecting species on the ground. This includes conservation policies that States are developing, where they work with industry and landowners to protect species without hampering multiple- use policies; that is, multiple use of the land. Second, States are showing the right way to protect our water, land, and air. They are putting in place ideas that are tailored to the needs of their own communities. They are actually looking at what is unique about their State and the best way for people to solve problems locally. Third, States are promoting access to fish and wildlife. States understand they need to manage and protect lands and waters in a way that allows for public spaces to be enjoyed. That means ensuring those spaces remain intact for future generations. These are called natural resources for a reason--they are meant to be enjoyed by all of us, not sealed off under Washington's lock and key. Fourth, the report looks at what States are doing right when it comes to in-state scientific and support staff. State agencies are employing thousands of people who live in the communities they are trying to protect. Who has more incentive to protect the local environment? The people who are living there, the people who are working there, and the people who are raising their children in these communities, or some bureaucrats locked in a Washington, DC office? Who knows more about the specific unique features of a State or local area and what will work best there? The Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses have put out this report to highlight just a few of the State initiatives we believe are working. I hope the President will take some time today to not just talk but to actually listen and to read our report and see some of the ways States are getting it right and Washington is getting it wrong. If others are interested and wish to read the report, they can certainly find it at my Web site, www.barrasso .senate.gov. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague from Tennessee for his leadership on foreign affairs and his efforts in these areas. I fully support all of his efforts to bring forth a united position on behalf of our country.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor because the American people have just received more horrible news about our economy. The Commerce Department reported this morning that our economy grew at the smallest rate in 3 years. The exact number is 0.1 percent--much worse than expected. To be specific, investment in business equipment declined, residential home construction declined, U.S. exports fell sharply, and companies increased inventories at a much slower rate. I wish to read what some of the economists have said about this. Dan North, a chief economist, said: We've been living in sub-3 percent land, and people have gotten used to that as the new normal. But it's not. It's anemic. To make matters worse, the Financial Times this morning is reporting that China is poised this year to pass the United States as the world's leading economic power. The American people deserve better than this and they shouldn't have to accept that anemic growth as the new normal. They deserve growth, good jobs, and better opportunities. That is not what they are finding from the Obama economy. Instead, the President continues to push an agenda that makes it harder for Americans to find good jobs and to bring home bigger paychecks. So I wish to speak about how the health care law specifically is slowing growth and how it is making American paychecks smaller. I met earlier today with business leaders from Wyoming. They are here from Casper, Cheyenne, and Jackson, and I have heard input from them regarding how the health care law has impacted their businesses, how it has impacted our State of Wyoming, and how it has impacted our economy not just in Wyoming but nationwide. It is interesting to watch the White House and the President specifically spike the ball, claiming that 8 million people signed up for health insurance through the government exchanges. At the same time, President Obama has declared that the national debate about his health care law is over. The meaning of the number is highly questionable, and the administration's victory lap is premature. In fact, the ObamaCare debate is far from over. So I come to the floor to speak about additional side effects of the Obama health care law. I will continue to do this week after week because the side effects on the American people and the American economy and on health care in this country continue to be very damaging. I will speak about smaller paychecks as one of the ObamaCare side effects, to point out that the debate is not over for the millions of Americans who are experiencing the negative side effects of the President's health care law voted on by Democrats and not by Republicans. One of the worst of these side effects is the smaller paychecks many families are experiencing specifically because of the mandates of the health care law. It is happening all around the country. Let me tell my colleagues what is happening as reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader. This is just one example. The article was talking about small businesses that have found that paperwork and costs related to the law are threatening the economic platforms on which their companies are built. It quoted a man who runs a ski area saying the law could mean he has to open later in the season and close earlier in the season. That is because people on his payroll for 120 consecutive days or longer have to be offered health insurance under the Democrats' health care law. Mother Nature might say there is plenty of snow, the skiers and snow boarders are ready to go, the resort wants to open, restaurants are ready to serve people, hotels are ready to host people, but ObamaCare says the resort can't open without facing enormous costs for Washington-mandated insurance. It is hurting people working at the ski resorts. It is hurting people in businesses in those communities. Who pays for the negative side effects? It is the seasonal workers who will now be limited to fewer than 120 days of work at ski facilities such as this one in New Hampshire. They will work fewer days with smaller paychecks because of the health care law. The New Hampshire Union Leader summed it up this way: ``As snowboarders say: bummer.'' It is not just seasonal workers who are being hurt. This column also talks about the ski resorts in Colorado being hurt. In North Carolina, State government agencies are starting to get very worried about how to deal with the health care law's mandates. The law says employers--including State and local governments--have to cover people who work 30 hours a week or more. That is whom the law considers full-time workers. When I talk to business leaders from Wyoming, most people think of full-time work as 40 hours. Not President Obama. He is a 30-hour man. According to a story from WTVD in Raleigh, State agencies are looking at cutting the hours of part-time workers to keep them under that 30- hour limit. The North Carolina Agriculture Department has about 250 part-time employees who are now working more than 30 hours. They have 250 workers in the North Carolina Agriculture Department, and those 250 people are working more than 30 hours, but they are part time. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has almost 600 people in the same situation. So North Carolina is going to have to look very closely at what to do with those people, and that can mean smaller paychecks. Local governments are having to make these same decisions because of the health care law. WITN, another station in Greenville, NC, did a story last month about how schools are cutting the hours substitute teachers can work--the same 30-hour Obama workweek limit again. The health care law wasn't about substitute teachers, but they are the ones feeling the negative side effects and they are the ones seeing smaller paychecks. The story quoted a teacher in Pitt County, NC, who said she got a letter from the school district there telling her she wouldn't be able to work as much. Substitute teachers are now limited to 3 days a week. Why? Because of the expensive mandates of ObamaCare. She told the TV station, ``I'm willing and able to work, and now they're telling me I can only work for so long.'' This teacher is one of 200 in her North Carolina school district who are going to be limited to 21 hours a week, and she is wondering how she is going to make ends meet with 21 hours a week. That is a side effect of the health care law that means smaller paychecks for substitute teachers. President Obama says the debate is over. Is it over for teachers in North Carolina who are seeing their time cut to under 30 hours a week? Is it over in ski resort communities in New Hampshire and in Colorado? Look what is going on in Iowa. An article just last week in the Ottumwa Courier said that a local school district was cutting the hours on all paraeducators from 37 hours per week to 29 hours. Those extra hours may not mean much to Democrats on the floor of the Senate or the House Members who voted for this health care law, but they are a real big deal for a lot of families struggling in the Obama economy. In Colorado, the Aspen Daily News reported last month that adjunct professors at Colorado Mountain College are going to have the same limit of 29 hours a week. This school has 112 full-time faculty, but it has 600 part-time professors. Some of them just want to teach a class here or there to make extra money, but some of them are trying to string together enough hours to support themselves, to support their families, and they are getting hammered by the President's health care law that every Democrat in this body voted for. It is happening all over the country. We have heard stories today about New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado. Here is a final example. A borough in Alaska announced earlier this year that it was putting a cap on the hours of firefighters and emergency medical technicians. According to one technician, some stations are limiting people to just 24 hours a week. So we see teachers, firefighters, professors, seasonal workers all hurt by the side effects of the Obama health care law, and they are all getting hit with smaller paychecks--nothing they have asked for. They want to work. They are ready to work. They are willing to work. We have a weak economy, an anemic economy, and the President and Democrats do not seem to care. They do not seem to care. They think the debate is over. President Obama says the debate is over. He says Democrats who voted for this should forcefully defend it and be proud. How can the President forcefully defend these smaller paychecks? How can the President be proud of these smaller paychecks because of his law and what he had Democrats vote for--in North Carolina; Alaska, where you hear these stories; New Hampshire; one after another after another; Colorado. Well, it is not over for Americans, who are continuing to get hit in their wallets, people in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Alaska, all over the rest of the country. It is not over for Republicans, who will continue to stand for those Americans and keep pushing for commonsense reforms that will actually help people get the care and what they wanted all along, which was better access to quality, affordable health care. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it seems the President's decision is absurd, to delay the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is not just me saying that. That is the Washington Post, Thursday morning, April 24: ``Keystone XL's absurd delay. President Obama should approve the pipeline project now.'' They say: If foot-dragging were a competitive sport, President Obama and his administration would be world champions for their performance in delaying the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. They go on to say: The administration's latest decision is not responsible; it is embarrassing. The United States continues to insult its Canadian allies by holding up what should have been a routine permitting decision amid a funhouse-mirror environmental debate that got way out of hand. They conclude by saying: The president should end this national psychodrama now, bow to reason-- Think about that: ``bow to reason''-- approve the pipeline and go do something more productive for the climate. That is not just the Washington Post. We see also the Wall Street Journal, on Wednesday: ``Keystone Uncensored.'' They talk about a labor leader calling the administration ``gutless,'' ``dirty,'' and more. So why would a union leader--who endorsed President Obama in 2008 as a candidate, endorsed him again in 2012--why would he say this? He actually went on to say: ``It's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics.'' To get an answer to that, you have to look at an article that Politico ran last Thursday called ``The left's secret club.'' It said: Some of the country's biggest Democratic donors--including Tom Steyer . . .--are huddling behind closed doors next week in Chicago to plan how to pull their party--and the country-- to the left. The meeting will be held in the ballroom of the Ritz-Carlton. Politico describes the group as ``a secretive club of wealthy liberals.'' So who is Tom Steyer? Well, he is a hedge fund billionaire who has said he is hoping to spend at least $100 million to defeat candidates who support the Keystone XL Pipeline and who oppose his extreme environmental agenda. I want to be absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with legal participation in elections. If a hedge fund billionaire like Mr. Steyer wants to spend his money talking about his views, he is free to do it. I disagree with his views, but I would never come to the floor of the Senate and denounce him as un-American. But that is exactly what the majority leader, Senator Reid, has done, repeatedly coming to the floor to criticize and demonize people who do not share his views. I have not heard Senator Reid demonizing Tom Steyer or any other wealthy liberal donors. According to Politico, the majority leader was actually scheduled to attend a fundraising dinner at Mr. Steyer's home a few months ago. So the coincidence, to me, of the administration's announcement right before this big liberal political event remains suspicious. The silence of the majority leader about one person's spending when he has been so outspoken about the spending of other people is certainly suspicious as well. Maybe that is what the union head meant when he said: ``It's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics.'' Whatever the reason, the important thing is that President Obama continues to turn his back on thousands of middle-class families in desperate need of jobs. That is what needs to change. The administration and this body, controlled by Senator Reid and the Democrats, can no longer put politics ahead of policy substance. It is time for the administration to do the right thing and to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline no matter what the Democrats' secretive billionaires say. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, after 38 years with the Wyoming Mining Association, Marion Loomis is retiring. Marion started his career in the early 1970s with the State of Wyoming's Department of Economic Planning and Development as an economic development geologist. In one of his first jobs, he ran the fuel allocation office during the Arab oil embargo in 1973. In 1976, he joined the Wyoming Mining Association and was made executive director in 1991. His vast knowledge and experience are tremendous assets to the State and its people, and we are grateful for his service. In Wyoming, we have adopted the Code of the West as our official State code of ethics. Marion Loomis personifies the code. This list of ten ideals every man and woman should live by perfectly describes Marion's personal--and professional--demeanor. Marion Loomis takes quiet pride in his work. With his advocacy, Wyoming has seen exponential growth in the coal industry. When he began, Wyoming produced 8 million tons of coal annually. Today, around 400 million tons of Wyoming coal are mined and shipped nationwide--and worldwide. Marion has never been one to boast or brag. Instead, he lets his accomplishments speak for themselves. In the past 40 years, Wyoming's production of trona has grown from 1 mine that produced 300,000 tons per year to 4 mines which produce over 10 million tons annually. When he speaks, people listen. They know that his opinions reflect a lifetime of study and are tough, balanced, and fair. Throughout his career, Marion Loomis has been a champion for Wyoming energy. He was a steadfast leader for the Wyoming Mining Association during several boom and bust cycles in energy development. The State's uranium production is a prime example. He witnessed a booming industry stagnate in the 1990s. Today, it has emerged again as a valuable resource. Marion has always promoted Wyoming as a key player in our Nation's quest for energy independence. He truly does ride for the brand, and his leadership is inspiring. Marion retired from the Wyoming Mining Association earlier this month. He will be missed, but he has left both the association and the industry stronger, thanks to his dedication and hard work. In the days ahead, Marion plans to fish the streams of Wyoming's Bighorn Mountains, where he and his wife have a cabin. I cannot think of a more fitting reward for a job--and a career--well done.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly since the health care law has been passed, with concerns I have and to share some information with the Senate because of my concerns that in order to help some people who did not have insurance, I am afraid we have hurt many people who did have insurance, did have care they liked. The President continued to focus on coverage, and I have more concerns, as a doctor, about people actually getting care, getting health care, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. So I come to the floor today to talk about a new story out this morning, actually in the Huffington Post, called ``How Obamacare Leaves Some Patients Without Doctors.'' I recall how the President had said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Yet we are hearing stories from all around the country of people who have found that not to be true. I have heard the majority leader come to the floor and say in a statement that so many stories are lies, they are made up. But I will tell you that this morning, in this publication, there is a lengthy story of several patients in California who have had pain, problems, medical concerns, signed up for insurance, and, as a result, have found out they have insurance, they have coverage, but they cannot find care. So I would like to share with the Senate today a story, and it has some of the concerns I raised during the debate and the discussion of the health care law. But the Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, from California--the State where this happened--said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Well, now people all across the country are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out they are terribly disappointed and they feel they have been sold a bill of goods and they are getting stuck with a bill, and they are finding out it is not very good for them. The report in this morning's Huffington Post starts out: In January, a doctor told [Ms.] Friedlander, who was suffering from excruciating lower back pain, that she needed surgery to remove part of a severely herniated disc. Well, she had Blue Shield insurance, as they report, through Covered California, which is California's version of ObamaCare, and she planned to use that coverage to pay for the operation. It makes sense. This is what happened. It says: But when she started to call surgeons covered by Blue Shield, she ran into a roadblock. Surgeons who were covered by her insurance-- amazingly-- operated out of hospitals no longer covered by her insurance. . . . So if the surgeon was covered, the hospital was not or, vice versa, she could find a hospital that would cover her surgery but could not find a surgeon who was covered by her insurance that was on the staff of that hospital. It says: [Ms.] Friedlander spent days on the phone, hours on hold, making dozens of calls across Southern California, trying to match a surgeon with a hospital that would both be covered. In total, she reached out to 20 [different] surgeons and five [different] hospitals. ``No one could help me. Some expressed sympathy,'' Friedlander, 40, told The Huffington Post in an email. ``They told me, `I'm so sorry--it's all just so new. You're a victim of the changes. No one knows what they're doing.' '' So what we have here is a victim of the Obama health care legislation because first we had to pass it before we get to find out what is in it. Unable to match a hospital and a surgeon that were both covered, [Ms.] Friedlander started haggling between doctors for a cash price for the surgery. She chose a surgeon who wasn't covered by her insurance but who operated in a hospital that was covered. Because she could not, with her insurance, get both the hospital and the doctor. She expects her insurance to pay the hospital bill, but she had to pay her surgeon's bill herself. All out of her own pocket. The article goes on to report: . . . nationwide, about 70 percent of Obamacare plans-- About 70 percent of the plans purchased on the Obama health care law-- offer fewer hospitals and doctors than employer-sponsored group plans or pre-ACA individual market plans, according to a study by consulting firm KcKinsey & Company released in December. This narrowed number of doctors and hospitals is what [Ms.] Friedlander encountered when trying to match a surgeon and hospital that would both be covered. What we are hearing today is that about 70 percent of ObamaCare plans offer fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, in spite of the President's promise to the American people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Now, Covered California says they are aware of the problem. A spokesman for the group--a senior medical adviser with the ObamaCare plan in California--says: We understand that some people are having trouble getting access to the doctors and hospitals they need. And we're working very hard to fix [that] as fast as we can. Well, perhaps if people had actually read the law, understood what was in it, they would have seen this coming. The President said your insurance premiums would drop. He said families would save $2,500 a family. But the article says: To make up for ACA costs and keep premiums low, Blue Shield asked its doctors and hospitals to accept payments from the insurer at rates [well] reduced-- Reduced from what they normally got-- reduced [by] up to 30 percent. The article goes on: Not surprisingly, some doctors and hospitals rejected Blue Shield's reduced payment rates and decided not to re-sign contracts with the insurer. At least three major Los Angeles hospitals previously covered by Blue Shield-- And, Madam President, I will tell you, these are first-class hospitals, these are highly thought-of hospitals, hospitals with incredibly good reputations. . . . three major Los Angeles hospitals previously covered by Blue Shield--UCLA-- The University of California-Los Angeles-- Cedars Sinai and Good Samaritan--have opted out of the insurer's new network. . . . According to [the communications manager from Blue Shield], Blue Shield of California now has about 40 percent fewer physicians and 25 percent fewer hospitals in its network than last year. You listen to what is happening, and they talk about the significant gaps occurring in California. These are the concerns I hear about when I go home to Wyoming every weekend. These are the concerns I heard about this past weekend in Casper, in Douglas, in Riverton, in Thermopolis, and in Newcastle traveling around the State. People are not able to keep their insurance. They are not able to keep their doctors. It is happening all across the country, and we see this story out of California today. The interesting part of the issue with California is that--the article goes on and they talk to an insurance agent in Sacramento who says: `` . . . people who already had insurance''--`` . . . people who already had insurance''--``especially healthy, young people, may be paying more under Covered California''--``may be paying more''; not what the President promised--``for fewer hospitals and doctors.'' That is not what the intent of the health care law was but it is what the health care law has delivered. This is what is happening to real people, real families, all across the country. The majority leader says: false, made up, whole cloth. But I will tell you, these stories will continue to occur. It is interesting, in today's article in the Huffington Post it says: And when signing up for a plan, it's difficult to determine which doctors and hospitals are still covered. They are talking about California now. The article says, quoting an insurance agent in California: ``You can sign up on Covered California and think you're totally fine, only to find out later that you're totally hosed''. . . . This man, David Fear, goes on to say: Specialist doctors, such as surgeons, ob-gyns and urologists, declined Blue Cross and Blue Shield's lower payments most frequently. Fear estimates that about two- thirds of Blue Cross and Blue Shield's specialists have opted out of the networks. It is not just that one patient whom I talked about. There is, like Ms. Friedlander, Ruth Iorio, a 35-year-old new mother from Los Angeles. She is struggling to find the care she needs in Blue Shield's smaller network. She signed up for Blue Shield through Covered California in November because the Covered California website listed her hospital-- The Web site, the President's Web site, the Covered California Web site-- listed her hospital, UCLA, as accepting Blue Shield. . . . Continuing: However, after Iorio gave birth in December, she was told that her ob-gyn at UCLA was not covered by her insurance. So she paid out of pocket. Iorio has not been able to find a urologist for her son or an ob-gyn who is both covered by her insurance and practicing in a hospital that is covered. The President said: You can keep your hospital, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. She's called over a dozen doctors who are covered by her insurance, and each has told her that if she or her son needs an operation in the hospitals the doctor contracts with, it won't be covered. So even if they get a doctor who is under their plan, they cannot go to a hospital to get actually a procedure done. As this lady says: ``My insurance is pretty useless. And I'm not fussy about what doctor I see,'' Iorio said. ``I don't know what to do. I may just drop it for myself and keep my son on it. It's really depressing.'' It is really depressing what the President and the Democrats have forced down the throat of the American people with this health care law. The article continues: Before joining Covered California, Iorio had an individual Blue Shield plan that was cheaper than what she now pays and that gave her wider access to doctors and hospitals. Cheaper, wider access. Exactly what the President had promised her is exactly what this woman has lost because of the health care law. She goes on and says: ``I'm paying $500 a month and every doctor I'm calling is saying, `No, I can't see you,' '' she said. ``I feel like a second-class citizen.'' Is that what the President's health care law is all about: making people feel like second-class citizens, hearing from folks when they call and ask for help that, sorry, you are just a victim of the Obama health care law--a nation of more and more victims? It does seem, as you look around the country, for those who have been helped, we should not have had to hurt this many people because of a law the American people said ``we do not want'' and was forced, on single-party lines, down the throats of the American people. This law is bad for patients. We have seen that today. It continues to be bad for providers--the nurses, the doctors, who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for taxpayers. Tax rates will continue to go up. Taxes are continuing to go up as a result of the health care law and the expenses related to it. It has failed repeatedly in dealing with the needs of the American people, who knew what they wanted in the first place, which was they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. Instead, they got this. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week President Obama has been holding what appear to be made-for-TV events to talk about the economy. He has been talking about the policies he wants Congress to enact, policies that he says will finally get America's economy going again. President Obama has been in the White House now for more than 5 years, so I think it is fair to ask: What has this administration--the Obama administration--been doing for the economy over the past 5 years? We know that the recession actually ended almost 5 years ago. Since then, our economy has not bounced back the way it should have or the way it typically does after a deep recession. The Obama administration has spent a lot of money on failed ideas such as the so-called stimulus package. Since the recession ended, Washington has racked up more than $6 trillion worth of additional debt, and it has not gotten us nearly the kind of growth we should have had as a result of this spending. Now the President has come out with a budget in which he has asked for tax increases of over $1.7 trillion--nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. Taxes are already too high. When I go home to talk to my constituents--as I would think most Members of this body hear from their folks at home--they say taxes are already too high. Americans are now preparing to file their taxes. Income tax day is coming--April 15. As Americans prepare to file their taxes, they are getting a reminder of just how much of their hard-earned money Washington is taking from them. Next Tuesday, April 15, is the deadline for most of us to fill out the forms and send everything off to the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans will spend more on taxes this year than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. We now know how much President Obama is spending, but what kind of effect have his policies been having on our American economy? We know that the economy is still not producing the number of jobs we need for a real recovery. We know if we want to look for the reasons why that seems to be the case, we could talk about the two million jobs Democrats are blocking with their restrictive energy policies. We could talk about the minimum wage bill that Democrats are pushing right now. The Congressional Budget Office says that would reduce employment in the United States by one-half million jobs--they say maybe as many as 1 million jobs. Yet the majority leader comes here and says it is the best thing we can do for the economy. Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost the economy one-half million jobs and maybe up to 1 million jobs. But probably the largest and most harmful thing the administration has done--not just with regard to the economy, but to other factors, including the lives of the American public--is the President's health care law. This law is hitting people across the country. There are folks who are seeing their premiums go up, losing access to their doctor, getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies, and it is also having an effect on our economy. Today we had our usual Wyoming Wednesday where people from around the State of Wyoming come to Washington and meet with their two Senators from Wyoming so we can talk to people from our communities. Today I heard another horror story related to the President's health care law. A family had insurance that worked for them, and it worked for them for a long time. It fit their budget, and it fit their needs as a family. But, of course, it was canceled as a result of the President's health care law and the mandates where the President believes he has a better idea of what works for their family than they know in terms of their family. This husband and wife have a couple of young children, and they lost their insurance. They tried and tried again to get reinsured through the exchange. It took them months. They finally went with paper forms to apply. The stories go on and on, and it is horrible to listen to what American families have had to go through as a result of the President's health care law. This is a family that was hurt as a result of the President's health care law in terms of what they are paying for insurance, in terms of the deductibles that are now in place, and in terms of not being able to go to the doctor of their choice. We have the effect on the family and the effect on the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law is going to lead to 2\1/2\ million fewer people working over the next decade. These are not my numbers. These are the Congressional Budget Office's numbers. Because of the warped incentives that are built into this law, some people will have to choose between working more and getting higher wages or working less so they can collect government subsidies. Remember Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House on the Democratic side. When this law was jammed through and down the throats of the American people, she was saying: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. I actually read the whole thing, and it continues to astonish me how few Members of this body and the body across the way actually read it and instead just took her for her word. Now what we are seeing are these unintended consequences continuing to show up. Even some Democrats have had to admit as much about this issue of people having to work more and getting higher wages or choosing to work less so they can collect greater government subsidies. One liberal columnist wrote in the Washington Post back in February that ObamaCare is ``a drag on economic growth.'' He said it was ``a drag on economic growth.'' It is a drag on economic growth ``as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.'' The President wants higher taxes, but he sets into place a health care law that discourages the work and additional income because the government subsidies get greater if you work less and have a lower income. That is one way that the President's health care law has been harmful, and there is another way as well. Remember, this law requires employers to pay for insurance for anyone working 30 hours per week or more. Thirty hours per week or more is considered a full-time job. There is bipartisan legislation in an effort to try to actually overturn that and get that back to the 40-hour workweek, which is what most Americans think of as a full-time job. How do people have to respond to the health care law that is out there? What are towns doing with their town budgets? What are counties doing in States all across the country? What are school districts doing? We see what they are doing, and they are talking about it. Towns, communities, counties, school districts, and universities are cutting back on the hours of their part-time bus drivers, librarians, coaches, and other middle-class workers. They are cutting back to get them below 30 hours a week so they don't fall into the mandates of the President's expensive health care law. What does that mean? It means it hurts people's take-home pay. If someone is working 32 or 33 hours a week and finds that their hours have been cut to 29 hours--regardless of what the majority leader wants to do with minimum wage--their paycheck is going to get smaller. Their paycheck is going to be smaller because of the health care law. Their paycheck will be smaller because of policies that Democrats have voted for--many of whom never read it in the first place. Is this just a Republican versus a Democratic idea? Not necessarily, because a group of labor union leaders who supported the law initially have said that this health care law will ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' The House of Representatives voted last week to do something about it. They passed--in a bipartisan vote--a bill that would change the definition of full-time work under the health care law from 30 hours to 40 hours. Senator Susan Collins introduced a bill to do the same thing here in the Senate. So what has happened with it? Well, the Democratic majority leader isn't allowing a vote on that bill. This is a commonsense way to reverse some of the harm the President's health care law is doing to hard-working Americans--how it is impacting their take-home pay, how they are seeing smaller paychecks and impacting their quality of life. But the Senate majority leader has blocked the vote. So the health care law hurts patients, it hurts health care providers, and is hurting the economy. It is interesting, because the President said all he wanted to do was insure the people who didn't have insurance. So we have an exchange. We have turned the whole health care system upside down. We have impacted one-sixth of the economy. And the whole purpose: to take people who didn't have insurance and get them insured. What does the Wall Street Journal say about it today in the headline talking about the newest statistics in the RAND study? They say most who bought policies through the new exchanges--most who bought policies through the new exchanges--already had insurance. They weren't uninsured. These people had insurance already. Many lost their insurance because of the President's health care law. Yet we have turned upside down one-sixth of the economy in an effort to help some but have hurt so many in the process. That is one of the fundamental flaws and problems of a health care law where the President promised, if you like your coverage, you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her. Now we have millions of people whose coverage has been canceled. We have many people who can't keep their doctor, can't go to their hospital. They are seeing higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles, more pain because of what the President and the Democrats have forced through the Congress, forced through the House, forced through the Senate. The American people wanted to change the health care system in this country and they knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. They didn't get that in this health care law. Many Americans have seen their costs go up--their initial out-of-pocket costs--to buy the insurance on the exchange. They have seen their copays go up. They have seen their deductibles go up. And they can't keep the doctor of their choice. So they know what they wanted, and this is not what they wanted, but it is what they have gotten instead. People understand that. That is why this health care law is still so very unpopular across the country. People see how bad this health care law is in terms of their own lives and how bad it is for the American economy. They see how 5 years of this administration and the policies have held back our economic recovery. Tax day, April 15, coming next week, will be another opportunity for Americans to reflect on how much of their money Washington has been taking from them and what they have gotten in return. I would say, as they reflect upon that, they will continue to say they are not getting value for their money. They are not getting value for their money. Polling shows that--and I hear this at home in Wyoming--for every dollar people send to the government, they think they are getting less than 50 cents on the dollar in value. They don't like it because it means when the government takes more, they have less to spend. The government is deciding where the money is spent, not families. And it is families who want to make decisions for themselves about their freedoms, about their health care, about their financial choices--what they want, what they need, and what works best for them. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank my colleague, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague Senator Blunt, who has been a leader and champion on the issue of getting people back to work. We heard the Senator from Rhode Island saying there are people out there desperately looking for work. What we are doing is bringing to the floor amendments to this piece of legislation that will actually get people back to work nearly immediately. So I rise today to discuss how Congress can actually help the people who are unemployed get back to work. We have been debating all week whether the Senate should extend unemployment insurance to the long- term unemployed. And whether or not one supports extending unemployment insurance, we can all agree and should all agree that job creation should really be the top priority. This, to me, is where the unemployment insurance bill, as currently written, falls short. That is why I, along with a number of my colleagues, have filed amendments that would help create nearly 100,000 jobs. Our amendment would do two things, and President Obama has failed to do them. The amendment I am here with Senator Hoeven to discuss would permit--approve the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as liquefied natural gas exports to our allies and strategic partners. The Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for over 5\1/2\ years--over 5\1/2\ years. During that time the Obama administration has conducted five separate environmental reviews of this project--five environmental reviews in the last 5\1/2\ years. Despite this scrutiny, President Obama continues to delay approving the Keystone XL Pipeline even though its construction would support over 42,000 jobs. That 42,000 jobs number is not my number. This is the jobs estimate from President Obama's own State Department. The Keystone XL Pipeline has broad bipartisan support throughout the country. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent of Americans support the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Labor unions such as the plumbers and pipefitters, building and construction trades, international labor, and the union of operating engineers, among others, have all called on the President of the United States to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Just over 1 year ago, 62 Members of the Senate voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline. If the Senate is going to extend unemployment insurance, it should also help Americans get back to work. We should adopt this amendment which approves the Keystone XL Pipeline. The other part of the amendment deals with approving LNG exports-- liquefied natural gas--to our allies and strategic partners. Before getting into the specifics of that, I ask my colleague and friend from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven--who has worked closely with supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a man who was Governor of the State of North Dakota during the early discussions--to express his thoughts on why we think this is important to the economy, to help those people who are unemployed, and help getting Americans back to work.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, before I start, I noted that the Senator from Connecticut came to the floor in an attempt to debunk a letter from one of my constituents to me, a family from Rawlins, WY, whom I talked about earlier on the floor. It seems the Senator is making the same argument the majority leader Senator Reid has made time and time again that these letters are made up. That is what seems to be the case. Is that what the Senator from Connecticut is saying? These are letters, these are emails, these are news articles that are out there coming from our constituents and coming from our home States. This was all supposed to be about affordable care. Care and affordability were the keystones of this entire piece of legislation. So I heard the Senator from California talking about people being denied care. It is happening now because of the health care law-- because of the health care law people are being denied care. Let me reference where my colleague from Connecticut comes from. The State of Connecticut, the Hartford Courant, a major newspaper in the State of Connecticut, has a report that came out March 17 of this year, just a couple of weeks ago: ``Connecticut Is Less Competitive After Federal Health Care Reform.'' I heard the Senator from California saying there are people who have been helped, and I believe that, but for every one person who has been helped, I believe many have been harmed as a result of the law. Let me tell you what our friends from the Hartford Courant wrote: The individual health insurance market is less competitive in Connecticut since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, the Kaiser Family Foundation said in a report released Monday. Of the seven States to release enrollment data by insurer, Connecticut and Washington had fewer options-- Fewer options, not more options, as the President of the United States has claimed--fewer options. The article continues-- for people buying health plans on the individual market, according to Kaiser foundation, a non-profit health policy research organization. California and New York, the largest States in the study, each has a more competitive insurance market today compared to 2012, Kaiser found. But Connecticut, the State where my colleague had questioned where the woman from Wyoming comes from, is less competitive. The article continues: In 2012, Connecticut's individual health-insurance market was more evenly distributed among a number of insurers. They list Aetna, WellPoint/Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, EmblemHealth/ConnectiCare. It says: Connecticut has fewer insurer options available on Access Health CT, its public health exchange, which was created by the Affordable Care Act. As of February 18, two insurers dominated 97 percent of health plans sold through Access Health CT. There is a ``less competitive exchange market and'' let me point out ``higher than average premiums.'' If that is what my colleague from Connecticut wants to say is a success, let him have it, but he has no right, in my opinion, to come and say that a woman who wrote to me is either not smart enough to know how to figure out how much of her premiums she is being asked to pay and what her premiums were prior to her losing insurance because of the health care law. Then the Senator from California came to the floor to say: Well, people aren't losing the care they had. NBC Connecticut, again where our colleague is from, says: ``Some Connecticut doctors said they will not accept certain health insurance plans offered on the state health exchange.'' The story goes on to say: ``It broke my heart,'' losing the doctor she had been to before whom she trusts and has faith in but because of the health care law is losing that care. I come to the floor to just point out that Republicans have better ideas. Republicans have ideas about ways to help work to lower the cost of care so patients can get the care they need from a doctor they want at lower cost, not the situation we see across the country, where many individuals believe and truly feel harmed as a result of the President's health care law. With that, in response to what my colleagues from Connecticut and California have just said, we are here today to talk about jobs, the economy, getting people back to work. As a doctor, I will tell you long-term unemployment, how it affects someone's life, how it affects, I believe, their identity, their self-worth, their dignity, and the way they think about themselves, and so it is much more important that we get Americans back to work. I am on the floor with a number of my colleagues. The Senator from South Dakota is on the floor, and he knows as well as anyone the impact unemployment has in rural America, in the Western United States and how when jobs go away it makes it much harder for other jobs to come. I would ask that he share some of those thoughts with us right now.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, a State in which he served as a Governor, a business leader in the community, and knows the State very well and knows the importance of energy--not just to his State's economy but to the economy of the country and the importance for people who want work, who want jobs. I think bringing together the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as the exportation of liquefied natural gas is what will help get Americans back to work. Since September of 2010, the Obama administration approved only seven applications to export liquefied natural gas. The administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. Thirteen of those applications have been pending for more than 1 year. Some of these applications have been pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context: The United States has approved less than half of the LNG export capacity that Canada has approved. To me, this administration's delay is unacceptable and the excuses have run out. I take a look at this from the standpoint of what is happening globally as well. Ukraine imports about 60 percent to 70 percent of its natural gas from Russia. 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. LNG exports would help our strategic partners and allies free themselves from Russian energy. This is why our NATO allies are calling on Congress to expedite--expedite--LNG exports. LNG exports will give our allies an alternative supply of natural gas and enable them to resist Russia's intimidation. LNG exports will also help create jobs right here at home. In February, The Economist explained that LNG exports ``would generate tanker loads of cash'' for the United States. More recently, Nera Economic Consulting suggested that LNG exports could help reduce the unemployment rolls by as many as 45,000 over the next few years. This is extraordinary. LNG exports would not only create new jobs but would employ Americans who cannot find work today. LNG exports would help as many as 45,000 Americans find work. President Obama through his actions has made it very clear that jobs are not his priority. He seems to be more interested in inventing new delays and new excuses than in actually creating new jobs. That is why the Senate must act today and here in this place. That is why the Senate should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and LNG exports and that is why we should adopt the amendment that Senator Hoeven has offered. So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say Republicans have now tried to offer 9 amendments we believe would get this economy growing again, amendments we believe would actually create jobs and put people back to work. Now, to inform my colleagues of what I am about to do, I am going to move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, which for everyone's information is an amendment which merely changes the date of enactment. So Senators voting not to table this amendment would rather change the date than vote on amendments that would help put people back to work. In order for my colleagues to be able to offer amendments, I move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, yesterday President Obama held an event at the White House to talk about his health care law. The President said: The debate over repealing this law is over--the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. That is what President Obama said yesterday. Of course, last October President Obama said his health care law was ``the law of the land.'' Then he went ahead and changed or delayed the law more than 20 times after that--on his own, without coming to Congress. If it is the law of the land, how does he get to change the law of the land 20 times? Back on March 6, President Obama said the Democrats' health care law is ``working the way it should.'' Well, if the law is working the way it should, why do people in Wyoming keep telling me how bad the law is for them personally? Just the other day I heard from a woman in Rawlins, WY. She wrote: My husband has been self-employed at a small truck driving company servicing the oil and gas fields in [Wyoming] for over 13 years. We have always purchased individual healthcare coverage for our family of five. We currently pay $906.87 for that coverage. She said: The lowest priced ACA Bronze plan will increase our premium to $1359 per month, an increase of $452 per month--an amount we cannot currently absorb. This is not affordable. Why is [President] Obama doing this to us? That is a good question. Why are Democrats here in Washington doing this to families such as this woman's family in Wyoming? Why does President Obama think his law is working the way it should? Well, the Senate Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, said here on the floor of the Senate back on February 26 that the law is going great. The majority leader said, ``Despite all the good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told.'' He went on to say: ``All are untrue, but they're being told all over America.'' ``All are untrue,'' he said here on the floor. The majority leader added that all of the stories were ``made up from whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements.'' Why does Senator Reid think this woman in Rawlins, WY, is making up a story out of whole cloth? Remember, the President also said that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said people's health care costs were going to be $2,500 lower by now. So the President has said a lot of things that turned out not to be accurate. Now the President says his health care law is here to stay. Given the President's history, I think it is fair to get a second opinion. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming, I come to the floor to tell you that I bring my medical experience, along with my colleague's experience, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. He and I have put together a report that looks at some of the promises Democrats have made about the law and some of the things Republicans have said about it. The report is called ``Prognosis.'' It came out April 2014 and is available today on Senator Coburn's Web site at www.coburn.senate.gov or on my site at www.barrasso.senate.gov. What we have done is come out with a report going through three different previous reports that, as doctors, we have put out watching the health care law as it has been developing. Each of the reports--one called ``Bad Medicine,'' one called ``Grim Diagnosis,'' and one called ``Warning: Side Effects''--was released between 2010 and 2012. We grade ourselves now on how the predictions we have made over the last 4 years have turned out. In the first prediction we made--report No. 1, ``Bad Medicine''--we warned that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance plans. The headlines all across the country show that over 5 million Americans did, in fact, get letters that they lost their health insurance plan--health insurance which they liked, which worked for them, something they chose and they lost because the President said it wasn't good enough. He said he knew more about what they needed for themselves and their families than they did. So we predicted 4 years ago that millions would lose their health insurance plans, and millions did. We warned that the law's new mandates would increase health costs and obviously increase the cost of insurance. That original diagnosis is confirmed as well. Like the letter I just read from the family in Rawlins, WY, families all across Wyoming and all across the country are seeing incredible increases in the cost of their insurance. They are paying more, and in their opinion they are getting worse insurance--the President said better; I say worse--because they are having to pay for a lot of things that they don't need, don't want, and will never use. Yet the President says he knows better than they do about what kind of insurance they need and what is best for them and their families. They are also being faced with higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs. We warned additionally that short-term fixes threaten seniors' long- term access to care. That is actually exactly what happened. The health care law took $500 billion out of the Medicare Program--a program to take care of our seniors--not to strengthen Medicare, not to help our seniors, but to start a whole new government program for other people. For those 14 million Americans on Medicare Advantage, a program for which there are advantages--preventive care, coordinated care, things one would want-- well, that has been dramatically hurt by the President's decision to take money away from the very popular Medicare Advantage plan. We warned that patients with preexisting conditions would still face care restrictions. I listened to the President's speech. I read editorials written by colleagues on the other side of the aisle as recently as last week that said people with preexisting conditions are all being protected. That is not true. We know of patients who because of their condition have had to leave the State in which they live to get specialty care in other States. And when they lost their insurance and bought insurance through the plans of their State, their children with cystic fibrosis seeking specialty care in Boston are excluded from doing that under the plan because the insurance was bought in the State in which they live and the insurance they got did not cover any out-of-State physicians. So children have been hurt by the President's health care law, and we can identify those young victims of the President's health care law. We warned that the individual mandate would fail with the IRS as an enforcer. The IRS even admits they don't have a whole mechanism put together to make sure the mandate to fine Americans for not buying a government- approved product would be collected by the IRS. We warned that new IRS taxes would harm small businesses. That initial diagnosis is now confirmed. Small businesses are impacted all across the country by additional expenses and costs, making it much harder for them to provide insurance to their workers. Many looking at this are saying that it might be cheaper to pay the fine than to do what we would like to do and have done in the past, which is provide insurance that worked for those employers and their employees but perhaps doesn't meet the President's recommendations of what many people say is much more insurance than they will ever need, want, use, or can afford. The second report we came out with a number of years ago is called ``Grim Diagnosis.'' In that, we went through a number of concerns we had about the health care law after the initial report ``Bad Medicine.'' ``Grim Diagnosis'' provided warnings that the employer mandate would lower incomes and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. We are still watching that one very carefully because we do know that with the employer mandate, there have been stories of businesses with 50 employees saying: We are going to have to get below 50. We are not going to hire more people. We have to get below that number. The President is working to maybe make that a higher number, but no matter where that number line is drawn, people are finding that from a business standpoint, there are advantages to being below a certain number of employees and then not having to comply with the expensive mandates of the law. We warned that the law included a risky insurance scheme that would cost taxpayers dearly. That original diagnosis is confirmed as well with something called the CLASS Act. Folks who looked at it carefully on both sides of the aisle called it a Ponzi scheme--a Ponzi scheme--that would never work, could not be afforded. They said it was something Bernie Madoff would even be proud of. Yet the Democrats forced it into the health care law in spite of warnings against it. Our final report was called ``Warning: Side Effects,'' released in 2012. We started talking about the side effects of the health care law. We warned that the law includes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes. Well, that has been confirmed. All one has to do is look at the list of new taxes brought on by the health care law. It goes on and on with one new tax after another. These are taxes on real people that get passed on to others if they are applied to a business, totaling $1 trillion in gross tax increases over the next 10 years, from 2013 to 2022. We warned that the new insurance cooperatives would waste taxpayer dollars. That is exactly what this report confirms. It goes State by State, where we see significant wasting of money, as reported in the Washington Post and in USA TODAY. We warned that the medical device tax would stifle innovation. That original diagnosis has been confirmed as well. We see the medical device tax, which, when we talked about it as part of a budget amendment, there was bipartisan support for repealing it. Why aren't we voting to repeal it when it matters, when we could actually get this repealed? The Senate majority leader continues to block a vote on that. So I come to the floor, the day after the President held his ``mission accomplished'' speech at the White House, to say that the prognosis for this health care law continues to be grim, the points we have made throughout continue to be true, and the people all across the country are experiencing it day-to-day. They are experiencing it in their lives. They are experiencing it when they try to continue health insurance that works for their family. They are paying more out of pocket. Their premiums are higher. They may not be able to keep the doctor they had and liked. They may not be able to go to the hospital they had gone to previously. It is interesting that in the State of New Hampshire where there are 28 hospitals, 10 of them are excluded--10 of the 28 hospitals in the State of New Hampshire are excluded--from the insurance being offered on that State's exchange to be sold in that State. Even the doctor who is the chief of staff of one of those hospitals--well, her insurance does not permit her to go to the very hospital where she is the chief of staff. Is this what the Democrats had in mind when they passed this health care law, people paying more in premiums, people losing their doctors, not having access to the hospitals in their community, higher copays, higher deductibles? That is what the American people are facing. It is time for the President of the United States to acknowledge the pain that his health care law has caused people across the country. I know he watches the polls, and the polls continue to show that for every one person who says they may have been helped by the health care law there are more than two people who say they have been harmed. People knew we needed health care reform in this country, and they knew the reason. People knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. This health care law has failed to deliver to the American people what they wanted, what they asked for, and instead is trying to deal day-to-day with something the Democrats in this Senate and in the House shoved down the throats of the American people. Thank you. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues for up to 45 minutes.