John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, having heard my colleague's concerns and story of a family who was helped by the President's health care law. We want people in this country to be helped. My concern is there are a lot of people who are actually being hurt by the President's health care law. We shouldn't have to hurt people, specifically people who have had insurance, to try to help people who haven't had insurance. That is the big concern that my friend from Connecticut referred to as I came to the floor this morning to discuss. I have grave concerns about the impact on the people of Wyoming and all around the country as we are getting letters and concerns. We were told on the floor that all of these stories--nine of us were reading different stories--that all of these are lies. These are not lies. These are people hurt by the President's health care law. We see them in States all around the country. We don't know how many people have signed up, how many have gone to the Web site. The White House can't even tell us if they know how many have insurance. Sure, they may have had a lot of people visit the Web site. I wonder how many people have actually paid to have insurance? What the President asked for is he said: We are going to get 30 million people who didn't have insurance to have insurance. It looks as if there may be fewer than 2 million who go through that. We know that fewer than 1 in 10 young people--the people who are supposed to pay for this program--young people paying more so that older, sicker people will pay less, those people aren't signing up. Only 1 in 10 of those eligible at that age is signing up. That is what we are seeing across the country, and that is why the worry is that there is going to need to be a big bailout of this program because the money that is being spent by the taxpayers is not getting the job done. They are not doing it in a way to actually help the people who need help without hurting so many other people, the 5 million people who received letters of cancellation. I hear my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is not only people--one person who may have gotten insurance in Connecticut who may have been helped in that situation. The impact on jobs and communities has been dramatic. When I looked at the State of Connecticut, there was a story in the New York Times only last month about the impact of this law that my colleague and friend has voted for that has now been changed over two dozen times. They are interviewing a superintendent of schools in Meriden, CT. We just heard a story of somebody who was helped by the health care law. Now let's look at what has happened to the superintendent of schools in Meriden, CT, Mark Benigni. He is also a board member of the American Association of School Administrators. In an interview with the New York Times, he said that the new health care law was having ``unintended consequences for school systems across the Nation.'' We have a letter from somebody in Connecticut, but let's see what happened to school systems across the country. Maybe they have children in school, I don't know. The article states: In Connecticut, as in many States, significant numbers of part-time school employees work more than 30 hours a week and do not receive health benefits. We know the health care law defines a workweek as anything above 30 hours. They have people who are working part time with more than 30 hours, and according to the health care law those are full-time employees. So they have workers with more than 30 but who do not receive health benefits, and he says: Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees? That is a question asked by the superintendent of schools in a town in central Connecticut. He says: If we have to cut five reading teachers to pay for the benefits for substitute teachers, I'm not sure that would be best for our students. The impact of this health care law and the mandate and the costs go way beyond the health care of an individual or a family or a community. It goes to so many other things, including the education of our young people. And those are some of the tradeoffs and the unintended consequences that have developed since passing a 2,700-page health care law. Whether they delay the signup date to allow more people to sign up, as a doctor, my concern is for those people who do sign up, what kind of care are they going to get. Are they going to be able to keep their doctor, which the President promised. The deadline date is less important than the kind of care people can get with the insurance they are mandated to buy as a result of the health care law, and pay a lot more than they would have paid had the law not been passed. Will they be able to keep their doctor? Will they be able to see a doctor? We know there is a shortage coming of about 90,000 physicians, half of them specialists, half of them primary care physicians around the country. This is coming in the next 5 or 6 years. We know the things that are happening along those lines with not enough nurses, not enough physician assistants, not enough EMTs, paramedics--across the board not enough people to take care of the population of this country. Having insurance is not enough to provide care. The President made promises that are not being kept. That is a concern I have when I hear the deadline is extended. My concern is what happens after they sign up. Will they be able to get the care they need? Last week, the Associated Press reported the results of a poll of all these different cancer hospitals. My wife is a cancer survivor, so I know how important it is for people to have the peace of mind to get the care they need. Of the 19 hospitals that responded to the Associated Press, only 4 of the 19 said, yes, they will be able to accept all of the plans of the people who are signing up on the Web site in those States where those hospitals are located. So it is not just a matter of keeping your own doctor, but it is getting the doctor you need at a time of family crisis, personal family concern--the time when people are most vulnerable. Will the fact they have some coverage bought through a Web site actually help them get the care they need? And will the doctor who happens to see them--even if they are able to keep their own doctor--be able to spend the time interacting with the patient or, with all the additional paperwork and time-consumption activities, will the doctor have to cut the visit short, spend time looking more at the computer screen than looking at the patient? There are complaints in every State of the Union from patients who are complaining either to their doctor or the nurse at the office or at the checkout area of the office saying, you know, I would have liked to have had the doctor look more at me and not so much at the computer screen. There are many components of this health care law that are harmful to health care delivery and to patient care in this country, and so the President decides to unilaterally delay a part of the law that this last week or the week before the Secretary of Health and Human Services said will not be done; this is the deadline; this is it. When is the law not the law anymore? When it is just Swiss cheese? When do you trust somebody, take them at their word? Words have meanings. It is time for this President and this administration to actually realize the American people see what is happening. Each time they do a delay or do a change or do this or that, it has a huge impact on people's lives as they try to decide what to do and what matters and what doesn't matter under this administration. People are very disappointed as a result of the health care law. Those who were looking for something better haven't found it. We still don't know how many people actually have paid for insurance. We may know how many went to the Web site, but we don't know how many of those who bought insurance through the Web site actually had their own insurance and got one of those letters--of the 5 million people who got letters of cancellation--canceling their insurance or how many were uninsured. It looks as though the Web site doesn't even want to look into that. On the paper application there is actually a box to check off. It says: I didn't have insurance but now I am going to get it. The Web site left that off. I don't know if that was ineptitude on the part of the designers of the Web site or if it was left off or fell through the cracks in the disastrous rollout. I don't know, but it wasn't there. So the administration, which said our goal is that of the 30 million people who do not have insurance, getting them insured, will never know the answer to that. Then there is the question of who are these folks, in terms of young or old, sick or not sick. And we know of those eligible, only about 1 in 10 has signed up. But the big concern is--regardless of some of these things the President is doing to delay this and let others sign up or not sign up for a bit of time--what kind of care are they going to get? Whether they are insured through the Web site this week, next week, or the week after, what kind of care is going to be available to them? And what happens when they find the cost of the care--as for so many people I hear from in Wyoming--is much higher than they were paying before? And if they had a policy they liked--or are still finding, if they didn't have insurance--many of them still think the rates are unaffordable. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, this past Sunday was the fourth anniversary of President Obama's health care law. Four years ago Democrats in Washington were confident the law they forced through Congress would be extremely popular today. Instead, the law has broken almost every significant promise President Obama made about the law itself, and Americans regrettably have been left to deal with the consequences. The actual law doesn't even look the same as it did 4 years ago because President Obama has lawlessly rewritten so much of it. Last night word leaked about the latest change. Now the administration is getting rid of the March 31 deadline for some people to sign up for insurance in the government exchange. According to this morning's Washington Post, if people just check a box on the Web site saying they are having trouble signing up, they will get an extension until at least mid-April--and I wouldn't be surprised if another extension after that and then again beyond. Remember, the Obama administration said 7 million people would have to sign up by March 31 in order for this open enrollment period to be a success. Those are the administration's words. But with less than 1 week to go, they are 2 million short of their goal. That is why they are allowing this extension because they are in a panic, a panic not enough people are signing up. The White House may come out and say they have come close to their 7 million target. They may even claim they were somehow able to find all of the 2 million people they needed to buy insurance on the exchanges, but looking at some of the dubious numbers the administration has released so far, we can predict there will be many unanswered questions about the numbers--whatever numbers the White House claims to now be the new numbers. The first question we should ask about the numbers is, how many of the people signing up actually have insurance? Apparently, it doesn't seem to matter much to the administration how many people who go to the Web site actually have insurance. The Obama administration released a report showing how many people went through the signup process on the Web site through the exchanges. Those people don't actually have insurance until they write a check, pay their premiums, and make sure they do have insurance. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said recently she had no idea in the world--no idea at all--about how many people had paid and how many had not paid, and she is the President's Secretary of Health and Human Services--no idea. Insurance companies say they have given Washington plenty of information to know the answer to that question, but the person in charge has no idea. One industry official told Politico: If they have not processed those yet and compiled the data, that is a choice they are making. But they have that data now. The White House can say whatever they want--and they tend to do that--but they have the data. They are not admitting the truth. Why isn't the administration playing it straight with these numbers? The point of ObamaCare was to get people insurance, not just register them on a Web site. A recent survey by McKinsey & Company found that only 53 percent of the previously uninsured people who had selected a plan actually then went and paid the first month's premium. So only about half of the people that didn't have insurance before, who signed up on the Web site, actually went to pay for and buy the insurance. That is question number one. Question No. 2 is: How many people are newly insured? That was the major goal of the Obama health care legislation. Washington Democrats said time and time again that we needed a massive overall of the entire health care system of this country in order to cover the uninsured. Many of the people who are signing up today and people who have signed up are doing so because the insurance they had, that they liked, that worked for them, that they could afford, under the health care law was canceled. The President's health care law forced them to switch. How many people? We don't know that either. One Health and Human Services official admitted as much. He said: ``That is not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systemic way.'' The government officials overseeing this part of the Web site are not even collecting the data. The goal of the whole policy plan was to get people that didn't have insurance on insurance. They are not collecting that data point at all. It turns out that the paper application for ObamaCare included a question--reasonably so--as to whether that person already had insurance because it is information we want to know. But the bureaucrats and the contractors who were apparently overseen by the President of the United States, who created the healthcare.gov Web site--the Web site that the President said was going to be easier to use than Amazon for insurance and cheaper than your cell phone bill-- apparently they just dropped the question. Why did they do that? Why did they drop the question that was on the paper form and leave it off of the Web site to ask if somebody had actually had insurance before? That is what they did. Isn't it something the Obama administration would want to know if they wanted to be honest with the American people. The best estimate has been from this McKinsey survey. They figure that by early February only about a quarter of the people who signed up for ObamaCare insurance were actually newly insured. Three-fourths of them were just changing out insurance, many of whom had their insurance canceled. If that number holds, the exchanges might end up covering fewer than 2 million previously uninsured Americans this year--fewer than 2 million people who didn't have insurance before covered on the exchange. Think about how much simpler, how much more cost effective health care could have been while still covering that same number of people. Here is the third important question. Who exactly is signing up? The administration is pushing young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 to buy insurance. It is not happening the way the administration wants it to happen. Through February, less than 10 percent--less than 1 in 10-- of the young adults who potentially could enroll have actually done so. Insurance companies need lots of young, healthy people to pay premiums--to pay for premiums and then not use much care in return. That is the only way this works. Unless more of those young people sign up by the beginning of next week, theoretically--now extended by checking a box--premiums are going to jump. Here is the final question. When people buy insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges, what kind of care will it provide? Just remember what the President said: If you like what you have, you could keep it; you could keep your doctor--easier than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone. People are losing access to doctors they have known and trusted for years. We have heard from people around the country that this has happened. But for some people having a doctor won't mean they can actually see the doctor. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, we are facing a shortage of about 90,000 physicians by the end of this decade. Some patients may be able to get to see a doctor but maybe not the one they need. According to an Associated Press survey that was reported last week, only 4 of 19 leading cancer hospitals--only 4 of 19 leading cancer hospitals--said that they accept the plans from all the insurance companies in their State's exchanges. For many other patients, the doctor is going to be spending more time looking at the computer instead of looking at them, even though they are in the same office together because of the burdensome new rules and recordkeeping requirements in the law. Maybe you can keep your doctor, maybe you cannot. Do you need special cancer care? Are you worried about whether you are going to be able to get that, and is the doctor going to be able to look at you and interact or is the doctor going to be staring at his computer screen instead of you in the limited time they have because of the burdensome requirements? It is going to be bad for patients. So patients are going to be getting less care and many will be paying a lot more than they were paying before. Secretary Sebelius finally conceded that the rates will continue to rise in 2015. Now The Hill newspaper that is around--this is what they said on Wednesday, March 19: ``ObamaCare premiums are about to skyrocket.'' The President said: cheaper than your cell phone. Reuters ran a headline that said: ``Insurers see double-digit Obamacare price rises in many states next year.'' Bloomberg's headline yesterday was almost the same: ``Obamacare insurer WellPoint Sees Double-Digit Rate Rise.'' The President said recently the law ``is working the way it should.'' The President of the United States looked into the camera and said it is working the way it should. What does he think of the people who are on the other side watching him on TV? Does he realize how he is losing credibility with the American people when he makes blatant statements like that, when they see how poorly it is working? I believe the President has no idea how the law is working, how poorly it is working or what is going to happen next. Does he really think the law is working or is it just a line that somebody wrote for him and that he read? It is hard to know. Does he think that double- digit premium increases are a sign that the law is working? I heard from one of my constituents the other day, as we were away for the week talking to people around Wyoming, and he put it in writing. He is from western Wyoming. He said: Senator Barrasso, I am sorry for the snide subject of our e-mail but the truth hurts. I know I am preaching to the choir but I just wanted to share our story and frustration. Now I know the majority leader has been to the floor and said all of these stories that we tell are all lies. This is a person who lives in Wyoming. This is what is happening in that person's life. He said: We have finally just finished applying for health care through the exchange and found out that our health insurance will double if we sign up. Fortunately for us, we are covered under our own insurance until this December. Our current plan is $505 a month, and it has a $15 thousand deductible after which it is an 80/20 split. The rub for us is the following: Under the construct of the subsidy plan we would theoretically qualify, based on our family size (5 girls) and our income. But since my employer offers health insurance for me and my family, we don't qualify. So we are stuck in limbo. Nonetheless, if we go on my employer's health insurance, we will be paying over $1000 more each month. If we go on the health care market place plan, the least expensive is $1,054/ month. This is a significant increase for our middle class family. I thought the affordable health care act was supposed to help us not hurt us. The affordable health care act was supposed to help us, he said, not hurt us. We are panicked on how we are going to pay for this in December? We will be taking all of the money that was going into savings to pay for a terrible insurance plan. Please help us and share our story with people who say this act is helping the middle class. I wish the majority leader were here to hear this. Please share this story--our story--a true story about a family in Wyoming, with those who say the act is helping the middle class. Madam President, it clearly is not. Does it sound like the law is working for this man and his family? President Obama says it is working just the way it is supposed to work. It is not working for this man and his family. Our health care system needed reform. It needs it now more than ever. We all know that. What Americans got with the Obama health care law was a monstrous new bureaucracy. It is raising costs for millions of people. It is leading to worse care and other unintended consequences. Now these questions are just a small part of what the American people want to know. In fact, as of last night, I can think of another question. How does the Obama administration define the word deadline? Kathleen Sebelius in the House the other day said the deadline is March 31. We are not going to extend it. We are not under any circumstances going to extend it. The White House press secretary said the same. Are there any deadlines at all for anything in this administration? Is it all on the honor system? As we start to get answers to these questions, we are going to see even more clearly that this health care law has failed patients, it has failed health care providers, and it has failed taxpayers. The President needs to admit that his law is not working. He needs to accept Republican ideas to replace it. Americans need better access to quality, affordable health care, not just broken promises, tired excuses, and unanswered questions. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that has been in the news quite a bit, and quite a bit on the minds of people, I think, all around the Capitol, which is what is happening with, specifically, Vladimir Putin and Russia and the invasion and takeover of Crimea and the activities in Ukraine. On March 15 Russian forces seized a natural gas distribution station in a Ukrainian village. I think this is key because this was right at the time they were getting ready to have a vote on Crimea leaving Ukraine, joining Russia, and I was in Ukraine at the time. I was there with a bipartisan group. We had eight Senators--Republicans and Democrats from across the aisle and across the broad spectrum of politics in America. What we saw at the time, right before the vote, was the helicopters heading in to take over the gas plant. To me that showed how Vladimir Putin thinks of energy, thinks of politics, and thinks of power. In the Washington Post that Sunday morning, the day of the vote in Crimea: ``Ukraine decries Russian Invasion, Natural Gas Facility Seized.'' Their first action before the vote even occurred, the Russians came in and seized a natural gas facility. It showed his willingness, his desire, to use energy as a weapon. It is also a reminder that energy for us can be a powerful weapon to counter Russian aggression. President Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he does not care about democracy, about freedom or about the Ukrainian people. What he does care about is money and power. As the United States considers how to help the Ukrainian people, as we are doing right now on the floor of the Senate with sanctions and aid, I think we need to make sure we take steps to hit Putin exactly where it hurts, which is in his wallet, in his power. Right now some may say: How does this matter? How important is this? Right now about half of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas. We heard it today in the energy committee. The chairman of the committee stated that in her remarks before hearing testimony. Fifty- two percent, she said, of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas. I think Senator John McCain was exactly right when he said this past Sunday on CNN that ``Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.'' He was part of that group of eight Senators who went to Ukraine, went to Kiev, went and saw where the massacres occurred and visited with the new Prime Minister and the new President. That is why I believe my amendment to this sanctions bill, this aid bill on the floor of the Senate, is so very important not just to us as a Nation but to the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, those who are trying to regain some freedom from the yoke and the tyranny of what Russia is doing by charging outrageous energy prices to people across Europe and across the Ukraine. We have an opportunity right now to make it easier for the United States to export our own gas to NATO countries and Ukraine. That is what my amendment will do. It is simple. It is two pages. By expediting the approval of facilities to export liquefied natural gas, we can send a very powerful signal to European markets that alternative supplies will be available soon. We can undermine Russia's leverage with its European customers today and undercut Russia's ability to make so much money off gas exports in the future. Some Washington Democrats continue to act as though the conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with energy. Other Democrats see it differently. The Obama administration claims that speeding up LNG exports to Europe would not have an immediate effect. That is not what we heard today in the energy committee. That is not what a bipartisan group of Senators has heard and believes. We cannot ignore Russia's economic dependence on energy and the reality about how energy markets work. Remember, half of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas. That is why the United States shale gas revolution is already undermining Russia's negotiating position with its European neighbors. This all has come about in the last decade--new techniques of horizontal drilling, directional drilling, all of which makes energy in the United States easier, cheaper to get, and then more available so it can then be more easily exported. By reducing U.S. demand, that frees up supply that can be bought on European markets. Because there is more supply, that forces Russia's state-owned gas companies to adjust their prices. Every molecule of American gas that can get anywhere else in the world is going to be a molecule that those in Europe and those in Ukraine cannot be held hostage to buy from Russia. That is what The Economist said earlier this year. The more supply there is, then Russia's state-owned gas company will have to adjust its prices. It ran an article on European efforts to reduce the control Russia has had over gas prices. We can immediately apply more pressure to the region's gas prices and further erode Russia's revenues by approving additional liquefied natural gas export capacity. I think about that hearing earlier today in the energy Committee, when every witness endorsed LNG exports to undercut Russia. So what is stopping us? Some Washington Democrats have denied any need to act more quickly. The administration has approved just seven applications for LNG export facilities over many years. It spent an average of 697 days processing each of them. The Energy Department has still not processed another 24 applications that are waiting and waiting and waiting. My amendment would speed up that process, force the administration to act on applications to be able to allow energy to be sent to our NATO allies and to the Ukraine. We don't need more hearings to tell us what we already know. Natural gas and the pricing continues to be a boot on the neck of the Ukrainian people and in Europe. Majority Leader Reid needs to allow a vote on my amendment. To me, it strengthens the Ukrainian relief package. It strengthens the economics in terms of money going from the United States. It strengthens aid, and it strengthens sanctions because it actually works to specifically undercut, undermine Russia's ability to hold others hostage. Plus, it has bipartisan support. There are a number of Democrats who would vote to support it. I think it is time to send a signal to Russia that we are finally ready to use energy to help stop their aggression. I will point out that I am not alone in this, and there is significant across-the-board support. It is interesting, the number of headlines in the past week or so from papers with various different approaches, including the New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom In Natural Gas Can Curb Putin,'' directly tying natural gas to the Russian President. That is the New York Times. The Wall Street Journal: ``West Tries To Loosen Russia's Gas Grip.'' Investor's Business Daily: ``Bold Energy Policy Best Response To Russia In Ukraine.'' The Wall Street Journal: ``Energy Exports as Foreign-Policy Tool'' and ``Moscow Tightens Squeeze on Ukraine Over Energy.'' It is evident the export of liquefied natural gas from the United States will help us as a Nation. It will help us in terms of our foreign policy, and it can be used and should be used and must be used to undermine the Russian economy at a time when they are--with Putin on the move, Putin on a daily basis evaluating the consequences of his actions to decide what he is going to do, planning to do, with the possibility of additional incursions into Ukraine. He continues with troops along the border between Russia and the Ukraine ready to act, ready to go in, ready to cross the border. All he understands is strength and power, and the way to undercut that is by undercutting his economic strength and power, by exporting liquefied natural gas. So I come to the floor asking that Senator Reid allow an amendment that would strengthen the bill we are discussing right now and making it better for the people in Ukraine, better for the people here at home, and actually doing something significant about the problem we see existing with the additional use of power by Vladimir Putin. I thank the Chair. 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, I rise today to introduce S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays, and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays, and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands. According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly. Over 8 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight. This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts. That approach was a step in the right direction. However, the agreements and process authorized under the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be. It is time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements. The bill that I am introducing today, S. 2132, would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes. I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements. In addition, the bill sets forth specific timeframes for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval. This bill also has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. The bill also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued. Additionally, S. 2132 would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development. This bill does not focus on only traditional resource development, but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially longterm supplies of woody biomass materials. My bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Enzi, Thune, Hoeven, and McCain for joining me in cosponsoring the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing S. 2132 expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, at a small desk on the third floor of the Wyoming State Capitol sits Joan Barron. For 48 years, Joan has served as a reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, sharing Wyoming's government with Wyoming's people. On March 21, 2014, Joan is retiring. Joan started her career in Rock Springs, WY. She was a nurse, but answered an ad to freelance for the Casper Star Tribune in 1966. The editors were impressed with Joan's work, and asked her to move to Cheyenne. Armed with a notebook and a typewriter, she became the capitol bureau reporter in 1969--a position she has held to this day. Historians will undoubtedly use Joan's work to understand the State of Wyoming. She covered seven governors, 50 legislative sessions, three boom and bust cycles. She knows the issues, she knows the players, she does her homework. Throughout her career, Joan has been a trusted source, delivering the news of the day to the people of Wyoming. When an article has the byline, Joan Barron, Star-Tribune capitol bureau, a reader can be assured of fact-based, comprehensive reporting. While Joan says she never wanted to be the story, she has had a tremendous impact on how those in Wyoming government conduct business. She was integral to the creation of the Wyoming Open Meetings Law in 1973. Due in part to Joan's observations, questions and perseverance, the Wyoming legislature passed ethics legislation. She held people accountable--and our State is better for it. Just last week, Joan quietly announced her retirement--not wanting any fanfare. That is typical of her. She is always the observer, never the center of attention. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Joan Barron for 48 years of reporting. She has recorded over one-third of Wyoming's history--and her perspective will be missed. Wyoming owes her a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4152. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, today Russia's Defense Ministry announced new military operations in regions along the Ukrainian border, a disturbing development that comes 1 day after Ukraine's interim Prime Minister visited President Obama and met with Members of this body. We are now faced with the inescapable reality that the Senate is about to enter a recess week, having taken no meaningful action to aid the interim government in Kiev. We are left with one option, taking up and passing the House-passed bill, which authorizes $1 billion in loan guarantees. We can pass that measure now by unanimous consent and assure our friends in Ukraine that they are not forgotten. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill contains provisions related to the International Monetary Fund that are unrelated to the crisis in Ukraine and not needed immediately and must be debated by this body. The bill also contains sanctions, cuts to the Department of Defense, and other appropriations provisions. The Foreign Relations Committee bill touches the jurisdiction of several committees and is certain to be met with opposition and perhaps a protracted conference with the House where, were we to take it up today, in the face of Russian armored vehicles, we are offering rhetoric, despite the fact that the committee bill addresses jurisdiction within the Armed Services Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and cuts Defense Department spending. The chairman of the committee refused yesterday to allow me to offer amendments concerning the export of natural gas to markets in Europe. The Senate should debate whether helping Ukrainians through the export of natural gas is in our interest, as dozens of newspapers around the country talk about Moscow tightening the squeeze on Ukraine over energy. The Washington Post says: ``Europe needs an alternative to Russian natural gas.'' The Wall Street Journal: ``West Tries to Loosen Russia's Gas Grip.'' The New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin.'' The Senate should debate whether helping the Ukrainians through the export of natural gas is in our interest. It should have that debate and pass sanctions, but none of those matters can be addressed today-- none of them. The only bill that can get to the President quickly is the House- passed bill, and we should pass it now. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to sit down for an interview with a health care Web site called WebMD. The President will take questions about his health care law, and he is going to try one more time to convince people across the country that his health care law hasn't really been a complete disaster. It is a little bit ironic that the President will be doing this interview because under his health care law, before we know it, healthcare.gov is going to be linking directly to WebMD. People are going to have to spend a lot more time on Web sites like that one because the President's health care law is going to make it tougher for many of them to see a real health care provider. America is facing a looming shortage of doctors, nurses, and physician assistants. When President Obama and Democrats were ramming ObamaCare through this Congress, they focused on hiring IRS agents-- agents to force Americans to buy expensive coverage--instead of training more doctors and nurses to deliver care to patients. Now, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, we are looking at a shortage of 90,000 physicians by the end of this decade. About half of those are family physicians, primary care providers, and about half of them specialists. We see the same numbers, if not even higher shortages, in terms of nurses. There is an old proverb: ``Physician, heal thyself.'' Well, apparently the slogan of ObamaCare is now going to be ``Patient, heal thyself.'' The old doctor-patient relationship is going to be gone. Medicine as we know it is going to continue to change. Even when you can get time with your doctor, there is going to be a lot more of that time spent with the doctor looking not at you but at a computer screen because of the law, and that is because of the burdensome new rules and the recordkeeping requirements under the law. As more people try to get appointments with fewer doctors, some Americans are going to start seeing actual rationing of care. Here is how one economist described it in a blog post for the New York Times. He talked about the health care law's limits on payments to doctors and other providers, and he wrote: If patients are lucky, the demand for doctors will be low enough that the limits will not matter. But if the new law results in a significant net increase in physician demand, the payment limits will help remind us of Soviet-era limits on the price of bread, with queues and black markets to follow. We know the President's Web site back this past fall was a complete failure. Four days before it was unveiled the President said: Oh, it is going to be easier to use than Amazon. The rates will be cheaper than your cell phone bill. You will be able to keep your doctor. But the Web site was just the tip of the iceberg. People are seeing higher premiums. It is interesting, Mr. President, as I was putting this together and thinking about what remarks I would make, I hadn't even seen this morning's newspaper. Today in the Wall Street Journal--Thursday, March 13--Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says: Higher premiums likely in 2015. Higher premiums. What did the President promise? He said premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. So the Web site is just the tip of the iceberg. People are seeing higher premiums now, and now the Secretary of HHS says there will be higher premiums again in 2015. People have received notices of cancellation--over 5 million across the country. Many people can't keep their doctor and are worried about fraud and identity theft which has been reported as a result of the Web site and is ongoing. Then, of course, there are higher copays and higher deductibles--more money out of patients' pockets. There is a report which brings this additionally to the fore in terms of concerns the people are having from people who supported the health care law originally. This report was put out last week by a major labor union discussing how badly this health care law is hurting its members. To put this into perspective, this is a labor union which actually supported then-Senator Obama and endorsed him when he was running for President a number of years ago, and they supported the health care law. Now this union has come out with a report which says: The law's unintended consequences will hit the average hard-working American where it hurts--in the wallet. We can go through this report called ``The Irony of ObamaCare Making Inequality Worse.'' To read from this: The ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage. It goes on with examples of various individuals who are members of this labor union whose lives are being hurt by the President's health care law. One, a woman from the majority leader's home State, talks about her job as a housekeeper and how, if she tries to buy the Obama health care program, the Web site says she would have to pay $8,057 a year more to keep the insurance she has now--which is a $3.87 per hour pay cut for her. She said, ``We work hard for our insurance. Why should we have to take a cut in pay for it?'' This is not what the President promised. So it is not a surprise that even the unions that had endorsed the President and supported the law are unhappy with what they see as the true results of the health care law. The Democrat majority leader has said all the horror stories about the health care law are untrue. Is he also saying these union leaders and the people who have been made reference to in the union report are lying? Is this what the majority leader is saying? Is that what he is saying about this woman from his own State? According to the media report, the union said the law ``will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.'' Everybody remembers the President's promises. They remember what the President said. Everybody remembers the President's statement: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' The press has called it ``The Lie of the Year.'' More than 5 million Americans received cancellation letters from their insurance companies. It turned out to be so embarrassing that President Obama had to delay the rules which caused it. It has continued to be a big problem, so the administration is delaying the rule again--not just until after the 2014 election but with the potential of going beyond the 2016 election as well. Here we go, dozens of delays. This is a calendar of 2013 and 2014. There are more delays to come--another delay, another lawless ObamaCare rewrite. The Obama administration continues to announce delays. We have seen one change after another to major parts of the law which are now ``politically inconvenient'' for the President. Republicans warned that these were real problems and that they would hurt hardworking Americans all across the country. I was on the floor during all of the debates, talking about the problems to come with the health care law, offering solutions, offering suggestions--every one of them rejected because Democrats just didn't care. They only cared the second they realized that all their grandiose plans were actually causing more problems than they ever anticipated because they didn't listen. The President had an event last week where he said that the law is ``working the way it should.'' This is what he said--``working the way it should.'' Is it working the way it should after he made all of these changes? Is that what he means--``working the way it should.'' So if it is working the way it should, why has the President had to change it so many times? Does he not know what the rest of his administration is doing? Does he not know what the rest of this country is seeing? Is the President delusional or is he just in denial? The American people want to know, and they deserve to hear from the President when he does this WebMD interview. When President Obama sits down to talk with WebMD on Friday, I hope they ask him about all of these delays and the changes he is making to the law. I hope they ask him whether he believes it is really working the way it should, which is what he said last week. I hope they ask him about how his health care law is going to reduce the time people get to spend with their doctors--if they can even keep their doctors. I hope they ask him about some of the ways the law is hurting Americans and America. I hope the President answers that he is finally ready to make some of these delays permanent, to start over again, to work in a bipartisan way, to try to help patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. This is what health care reform was supposed to be about in the first place. It is so interesting. Just pick up the papers. Yesterday, March 12, the Washington Post: ``Health Exchange Signups Slowed in Past Month.'' The New York Times: ``Health Care Enrollment Falls Short of Goal, With Deadline Approaching. Signing Up for Insurance, But Well Below Targets.'' Then, so many questions are asked of the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The headline in Politico today: ``W.H. Playing Dumb on ACA Enrollments, Insurers Say.'' I think the President needs to come clean with the American people and tell them about what a disaster his health care law has become, how it has impacted their lives, how few people have actually been able to sign up--or have been able to but have found the cost is too high for them to sign up--and admit to the American people that when they talk about some of these numbers of sign-ups, many of those are people who got cancellation notices. They are not newly-insured individuals. A study out last week shows that only about one in four people who have actually signed up on the Web site didn't have insurance before. So the people this was intended to help are not being helped. Many people are being harmed. It is time to work together to help patients get the care they need from the doctor they choose at lower costs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays, and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays, and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands. According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly. Over 8 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight. This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts. That approach was a step in the right direction. However, the agreements and process authorized under the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be. It is time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements. The bill that I am introducing today, S. 2132, would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes. I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements. In addition, the bill sets forth specific timeframes for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval. This bill also has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. The bill also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued. Additionally, S. 2132 would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development. This bill does not focus on only traditional resource development, but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially longterm supplies of woody biomass materials. My bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans. Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Enzi, Thune, Hoeven, and McCain for joining me in cosponsoring the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing S. 2132 expeditiously.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Texas for his comments, and I agree with his concerns. These are the same concerns I hear at home in Wyoming. I was in Buffalo, WY, at a health fair this past weekend. Hundreds of people from the community turned out. They have concerns about the health care law. They have concerns about their take-home pay. They have concerns about their jobs. And Wyoming is an energy State. I am the only Republican Senator who is both on the energy committee as well as the Environment & Public Works Committee, and so I think about the three Es: energy security, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. We need energy security for our country, economic growth for our citizens, as well as to protect the environment and be good stewards of the land. I believe in Wyoming we continue to do all of those. The American people have made it very clear that what they want from Washington is a focus on jobs and the economy. This is not what I have heard, though, over the last 24 hours from the Democrats on the other side of the aisle. The American people I talk to want us to make it easier for them to get back to work, to provide for their families, to get the kids back to school so they can go off to work. People's jobs are linked to their identity, to their dignity, to their self-worth. I think more of these regulations make it harder for people to have a job, to keep a job, and to provide for their families. So we had an all-night talkathon, and what did it accomplish? To me, the only accomplishment was a waste of time and more hot air. It seemed to be a dog-and-pony show to satisfy their big liberal donors. The majority leader spent part of the weekend in California with a big liberal donor who has promised $100 million to the Democrats on the issue they decided to hold an entire night talkathon on. They had five or six Democratic Senators at this man's home in California basically saying: We want your money. We want your money. This is what the Democrats did. So they put on an entire dog-and-pony show, showing that Democrats and their leadership--including the majority leader--is beholden to that liberal money that wants to call the tune for this Senate. It is astonishing this would happen in the United States; that the majority leader of the Senate would take a number of Democratic Senators to California specifically to go to the home of somebody who says: I want to give $100 million to promote what he said was his agenda--his agenda--and make the majority leader dance to that tune. This is what we saw for the last 24 hours. The majority leader could call a vote tomorrow--he could call it today--on a national energy tax. I think everybody on this side of the aisle is ready and prepared to vote on that. But for most of these folks, they wanted to just talk all night. They don't actually want to do anything. They just want to talk. The Democrats control the agenda. They control the majority. They have changed the rules in terms of approving nominees. They have it all lined up. It is astonishing that the most vulnerable Democrats who are running for office this year didn't show their faces last night. They wanted nothing at all to do with this. So we hear about regulations which are going to crush jobs and make it harder for people to go to work. As a doctor having taken care of people who are out of work for a long time--and I am sure the Presiding Officer knows people like this as well--I know that being out of work impacts their identity, the way they view themselves, and their human dignity. In fact, it affects their health as well. As a doctor, I have put together an entire report: ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick,'' a report on the health impacts of high unemployment. Studies show EPA rules--the rules, regulations, and redtape--cost Americans not just their jobs but also their health. For people who are chronically unemployed, we know there are higher rates of cancer, higher rates of suicide, higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of stroke, and higher rates of abuse--whether it is substance abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse. All of these add to hospital visits, premature deaths, all in communities where there is high joblessness. It is because of regulations which continue to come out of the EPA which are burdensome, which are expensive, which are time consuming. The costs are real, the benefits are theoretical, but yet this is what the Democrats on the other side of the aisle were talking about all night last night. So I would say, instead of spending 24 hours on extreme regulations which result in a national energy tax, Democrats ought to be listening to the American people and focus on jobs and on the economy. It is too bad Democrats would rather talk about a national energy tax for 24 hours than vote on the President's budget, a budget which never balances. Then vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline proposal which would bring, according to the State Department, 42,000 more individuals in our country into the workforce or even discuss and vote on other job proposals. They don't want to talk about job creation ideas. I will continue to do so in terms of the Keystone Pipeline and in terms of exporting liquefied natural gas. We have an abundance in the United States which would be helpful to our economy, helpful to jobs, as well as helpful in our foreign policy as we work toward not just energy security but global security as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I have come to visit with you today and the Members of this body with some concerns I have about people who are being impacted by the health care law. By ``impacted'' I mean hurt. Their lives are being hurt as a result of the impact of the health care law. We are seeing it around the country. As people are trying to comply with the law, we are finding that many people are losing their jobs or part of their jobs if they are working part time--to be held under 30 hours a week because under that criteria, people working less than 30 hours a week do not have to be provided with health insurance. We have seen stories around the country of municipalities, of public employees who are having their hours cut and as a result, obviously, their take-home pay is cut, their wages are cut as a result of the impact of the health care law, as communities try to comply with all the aspects of the law. We have seen it with police forces, with teachers, with coaches, busdrivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, office clerks, sanitation workers, emergency personnel, university faculty--people all around the country who are being hurt as a result of the law. Members of the Senate come from my side of the aisle to read letters of folks who have been harmed by the health care law. The majority leader comes to the floor and says these stories are lies. These are stories from people at home to whom I talk on weekends. I will be this weekend in Buffalo, WY, at the health fair, having a chance to visit with folks who are from Wyoming who go to a health fair for low-cost blood screening; also go to visit booths that are there from the heart association, the cancer society, the diabetes association, all taking efforts to try to improve the quality of their life, the quality of their care, and the quality of their overall health. It is interesting to hear from these people, because I do not think the President hears from them. When I hear the majority leader say the people who come to the floor to talk about them--that these stories are lies, it is calling the people of Wyoming who have honest concerns about the way their lives are being impacted by the health care law as being untruthful. I have come to the floor with more letters today and to talk about some things. It does make me wonder, when the majority leader comes and says these things are not truthful if he is not hearing the stories from the police officers and the teachers, the coaches and the bus drivers, the custodians, the cafeteria workers, the office clerks, the sanitation workers, the emergency personnel, the university faculty in States all around the country who have their lives impacted by the health care law. What I do think is that other Senators, Senators who perhaps go home more often than the majority leader, Senators who maybe listen to their constituents more and read the letters, are seeing the damage that is being done by the health care law because the President is responding to their claims, their concerns, and to the point that the President himself has unilaterally delayed many components of the health care law. These are the delays from 2013. Here is the calendar for the year. All of the X's are different days when there have been different delays. There have been dozens of delays as a result of the health care law impact on families across the country. I wish to read a couple of emails about the impact on lives of people in Wyoming. This is from a gentleman from Casper, my hometown. I was there Monday. I will be there again tomorrow. He writes: My wife and I just received our new monthly premium information for our health insurance. As of March 1, 2014 it will go from $505 a month to $1,045 a month, an increase of over double. This is for a Bronze level plan with a high deductible and high out of pocket. You know, I wish the President would actually kind of understand what the impact of this law has been on American families. I wish people who supported it, campaigned for it, would realize the impact on people's lives. He has gotten his premiums going from $505 to over $1,000, double increase, Bronze level plan, what the President wants people to have. It is the minimum level. It has a high deductible and a high out- of-pocket. He said: It is also the cheapest plan I have found so far for us that is available in Wyoming and complies with the ACA. Because the law says this man needs a lot of insurance. Maybe he does not need it. The President does not know this man, does not know his life, does not know his history, does not know what he actually needs in terms of insurance. But the President claims and the Democrats who voted for this health care law believe they know better than this man what he needs. But you know what we do find out, when he wants to comply with the law, his insurance premiums more than double, for the cheapest plan which has the highest deductible and the highest out-of-pocket. He says: This increase will mean that money we would probably have spent elsewhere will now need to be budgeted for the insurance increase. We go across the State to Moran, WY. Another resident of Wyoming writes: I am a resident of Wyoming and about half of my income comes from Social Security. My benefits total $958 a month. In addition to that, I work part time at a ranch. It is a seasonal job from May to October. I make about the same amount there as I do from Social Security. I have recently managed to submit an application for health care through the healthcare.gov Web site. The cost to me with my current income would be a low end of $837 a month with a $4,000 deductible. With the high end, it would be over $1,300 a month with a $1,000 deductible. Neither of those amounts are possible with my income range. I would not be able to afford to live. Now I refigured this with only my Social Security income and found that it would be very affordable, lower deductible, lower premiums, but I wouldn't have the income. I could possibly afford that but would have to live in a very substandard poverty lifestyle by quitting working. So he has these options: He can continue what he does, but he cannot afford the insurance, or he can get affordable insurance by quitting working but then cannot afford to live. This is what the President of the United States and the Democrats have given the people of America. He said: I would like to work and contribute as long as I'm able but things are looking pretty bleak for me. This is a man who wants to work. This is a man who wants to work, but the health care law is making it a lot harder for him to do so. He said: I am giving you this information in the hope that it will be of some value in combating the unfairness of the Affordable Care Act. The unfairness of the Affordable Care Act. I have to believe that Senators on both sides of the aisle who actually go home and listen to their constituents hear about this, hear these stories, hear these stories all around the country, of the unfairness of the Affordable Care Act. He then goes on and says: Thank you so much for your service to your country and the great State of Wyoming. So here we have dozens of delays--and this is last year. Now it has happened again. Just yesterday the President came up with another delay. It is interesting the way it has made the front page of the New York Times, a paper that has supported the President, supported the law, front page, above the fold, story by Robert Pear. The Obama administration, grappling with continued political fallout over its health care law, said Wednesday that it would allow consumers to renew health insurance policies that did not comply with the new law for two more years-- This is the New York Times speaking, front page, above the fold. This is not me. But they are repeating the kind of things I have been saying. pushing the issue well beyond this fall's midterm elections. So what is the idea here? Push it out beyond the elections, make people not see the reality and the danger and the damage that is coming their way until after they vote. The article goes on, front page above the fold, today's New York Times: The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers, deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the administration-- Here you have them. This is just in 2013. Now we have more in 2014. --unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn criticism from the law's opponents and supporters, many saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers. I believe that. I believe the President has gone way beyond the limits of his powers. The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama-- The President of the United States, who told the American people, if they like what they have they can keep it; if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor; who said insurance premiums would go down-- all of which are untrue, one called the ``lie of the year.'' The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in trying to build support for the Affordable Care Act and the uproar over his promise--which he later acknowledged has been overstated--that people who liked their insurance plans could keep them, no matter what. Over 5 million Americans got letters of cancellation, 3,500 in the State of Wyoming. A woman with a wonderful policy that worked for her, worked for her family, lost her insurance because it did not cover maternity care. She writes to me as a doctor and says: Dr. Barrasso, please explain to the President of the United States that I have had a hysterectomy. I don't need maternity coverage. You would think the President would understand that. You would think the Democrats who shoved this health care law down the throats of the American people would understand that as well. This is interesting. Still on the front page of this morning's New York Times: Under pressure from Democratic candidates who are struggling to defend the President's signature domestic policy, Mr. Obama in November announced a one-year reprieve for insurance plans that did not meet the minimum coverage requirements of the 2010 health care law. Wednesday's action goes much further, essentially stalling for two more years one of the central tenets of the much- debated law, which was supposed to eliminate what White House officials called substandard insurance and junk policies. If this is what the President believes, why is he now coming out and having a delay announced--not coming to Congress, not saying: Hey, let's try to do something a little differently. Let me propose this. Let's have a bipartisan agreement to come up with some solutions to actually help people get what they wanted in the beginning with health care reform, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. The letters I am reading show people not being able to do that. They are paying much higher rates for things they do not need, will never use. We are hearing from people all across the country who are losing their doctor, can't keep their doctor, higher out-of-pocket costs. We hear now the President wants to do some things unilaterally because a group of Democratic Senators who are up for reelection are worried about their political future, not about the future of the American people and the health care of the American people. That is why they are doing this. You say: No, that seems like an exaggeration. Well, let's go on. This next paragraph in the New York Times this morning: The extension could help Democrats in tight midterm election races because it may avoid the cancellation of policies that would otherwise have occurred at the height of the political campaign season this fall. So the cancellations are still going to happen, people are still going to continue to be hurt. We have over 5 million people who have gotten letters of cancellation. It is not saying: Oh, the cancellations are never going to happen. It is saying: It will push them out until after the election, so people will not be so irritated, angry, and aggravated at the Democrats who voted for it, in an effort to try to save their elections, try to save their Senate seats, but not to help the American people. This goes on: In announcing the new transition policy, the Department of Health and Human Services said it had been devised ``in close consultation with members of Congress,'' and it gave credit to a number of Democrats in competitive races, including Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Udall of Colorado. So the reason that the White House goes time after time, all these delays, all this and that, is not to help the American people; it is not to help patients; it is not to help the providers of health care; it is not to help the taxpayers; it is to help a couple of Democratic Senators whom they name--whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services names as recipients of the help because the President is worried about Democrats losing elections this fall. The Hill newspaper yesterday. ``New ObamaCare delay to help midterm Dems.'' Not to help Americans, not to help the people from my State who write letters about the concerns of their lives, not to help all of those people about whom my colleagues and I continue to come to the floor with letters to tell their stories, to tell about their lives, to tell about the pain they are suffering because of the health care law. It is not about the failed Web site. We all know the Web site. The President said: It will be as easy to use as Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone bill. You will be able to keep your doctor--several days before the Web site opened and crashed. No, it is more than about the Web site. It is about people's lives. It is about if they are able to keep their doctor. It is about cuts to Medicare Advantage and hurting our seniors who are having a harder time getting doctors. It is about people paying higher premiums. It is about people having higher out-of- pocket costs, higher copays, higher deductibles. It is all of those things. It is about hospitals in States that are not part of any of these exchanges, people in the communities cannot go there, they have to travel further distances. Nope, the President is not doing this for any of those reasons, not to help any of those people, he is doing it to help midterm Democrats because they are afraid they are going to lose their States, their majority, afraid they are going to be impacted and thrown out of office for absolutely reckless behavior on the part of a Congress that did not work in a bipartisan way, shoved the health care law down the throats of the American people in a way not to improve their lives, but to say that Congress knows better than people back home. I am going to continue to come to the floor with letters and stories. I will be at the health fair in Buffalo, WY, on Saturday morning talking to folks in my community, seeing what they have to say about their lives, their families, their jobs, their wages, those of them who are losing jobs or losing hours as a result of the health care law, those who cannot afford new insurance under the exchanges even though they had insurance they liked--even though they did not like the price, it was cheaper than it is now. The President said it wasn't good enough for them. I am going to continue to work for solutions to help patients all across this country have patient-centered care--not government-centered care or insurance company-centered care--to help patients get the care they need from a doctor they chose at lower cost--a complete failure by this administration and by this health care law. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, a few years ago--actually in 2010-- President Obama announced something he called the National Export Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to double American exports in 5 years. That is right, double American exports in 5 years-- something certainly I support. It has been more than 4 years now, and it is pretty clear we are going to fall way short of the President's goal. During his State of the Union Address this January, the President pledged once again to open new markets to American goods. The President specifically requested trade promotion authority. The very next day the Democrats' majority leader rejected the request. I come to the floor today to discuss how President Obama can increase American exports despite the opposition from his own party. The President should focus on energy, and the President should take the steps needed to increase exports of American natural gas, oil, and coal. Energy exports are going to create good jobs here in America and reduce our Nation's trade deficit. American natural gas, our oil, and our coal exports will also reap important foreign policy benefits, such as helping nations in Europe such as Ukraine free themselves from Russian manipulation. That is what it is--Russian manipulation. Last month the magazine The Economist 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.'' That is from The Economist last month. The article explained that the United States may already have surpassed Russia as the world's largest oil and natural gas producer. The Economist went on to discuss the benefits of liquefied natural gas exports from the United States. It said that natural gas exports ``could generate tanker loads of cash''-- ``tanker loads of cash''--for America. However, The Economist also pointed out that the process for obtaining the permits--the permits needed to export that American natural gas--is ``insanely slow.'' This is not an exaggeration. Over the past 3\1/2\ years the Department of Energy has used its discretion to approve only six applications to export liquefied natural gas. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is sitting on 24 other applications. Fourteen of those have been pending for more than 1 year, and two of them have been pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context, the United States has approved only two-thirds of the amount of liquefied natural gas exports that Canada has. Last year I introduced a piece of legislation, S. 192, the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act. It is a bipartisan bill, with supporters on both sides of the aisle, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. This would require the Department of Energy to approve applications to export natural gas to members of NATO, to Japan, and to any other country where gas exports would promote U.S. national security interests. Think about the country of Ukraine. As Congress considers this legislation, President Obama should direct his Energy Department to expedite the existing permitting process. He should set firm deadlines for the Department in acting on pending applications. These exports are going to create jobs all across this country--from natural gas fields in Wyoming, to steel mills in the Midwest, to ports along our coasts. Liquefied natural gas exports will also help reduce our Nation's trade deficit, which stood at nearly $39 billion in December. Finally, natural gas exports will help our allies in Europe. Ukraine imports about 60 percent of its natural gas from Russia. So what is Russia's position on this? Well, we know that Vladimir Putin--Russia had actually cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine twice before--in 2006 and in 2009. Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia's state-owned energy giant, Gazprom, is now threatening to raise gas prices in the Ukraine. American natural gas exports could help Ukraine and other European countries reduce their dependence on Russia. President Obama can also increase American exports by lifting the ban on exporting crude oil. The International Energy Agency estimates that the United States is going to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of crude oil by 2020. This really is a remarkable development, and it has happened because of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas production. It is estimated that unconventional oil and gas production is going to create up to 1.7 million new jobs in this country by 2020. But in January the International Energy Agency warned that the ban on crude oil exports-- the ban that exists on those exports--could impede American crude oil production. If the President does not lift the export ban, he is going to put American oil production and thousands of jobs at risk. He will also pass up on an incredible opportunity--an opportunity to reshape the global oil market. For generations, Americans have been subject to the whims of the global oil market. Americans pay more at the pump when oil production goes offline, wherever it is located. American crude oil exports would boost the world's oil supply and help stabilize prices for American consumers. American exports would also undermine the influence of oil-rich countries that do not like us very much. For years the United States has asked Japan and India to reduce their imports of Iranian oil. These are two of the world's largest oil importers--Japan and India. In 2012 Japan imported more than 4 percent of its oil from Iran. India imported about 8 percent of its oil from Iran. American crude oil exports could help cut off a vital supply of funding to the Iranian regime. If my colleagues are serious about ensuring that countries abide by U.S. sanctions on Iran, they should support American crude oil exports, not oppose them. Finally, President Obama needs to promote exports of American coal. Like natural gas and oil, coal exports are going to create good jobs all across the country. Over the last several years the Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to block American coal exports. The EPA is asking the Army Corps of Engineers to radically expand the environmental review process for new export terminals. It wants the Corps to consider the carbon emissions that would be produced by exports after they leave the United States. I want to repeat that. The EPA wants to block exports because of the carbon emissions the exports would produce when they are used after they leave the United States. The National Association of Manufacturers says the EPA's actions would set ``a very dangerous precedent that could be used to block exports of all types.'' That includes exports of American automobiles, exports of civilian aircraft, exports of heavy equipment that we manufacture here in the United States. To its credit, the Army Corps of Engineers has said it will not expand the environmental review process for new export terminals. President Obama should ensure that the Corps will complete its work in a timely manner and do so without interference from the EPA or any other agency. President Obama is fond of saying he has a pen and he has a phone. He has boasted about ignoring the will of Congress. He seems to take delight in finding legal authority where he has none. President Obama should stop using his so-called authority that is authority he does not have, and he should start using authority he does have. He needs to use his authority to promote American exports. President Obama needs to lift restrictions on exports of natural gas and on oil and coal so Americans can get back to work and our country can regain its stature in the world. The Budget I also want to speak very briefly about another area where I think the President's administration is really not doing enough. Yesterday the White House finally released the President's budget. This budget included no evidence of leadership and no sign that the President is ready to make a single responsible decision when it comes to Washington's out-of-control debt. The budget increases spending by $791 billion over the next 10 years. It is a 63-percent increase over where we are today--63 percent. It adds another $8.3 trillion of debt over the next decade. That is on top of $6.8 trillion in debt the President has already racked up. The President has never submitted a balanced budget in his life, and this one is no exception. President Obama is now a lameduck President. That becomes more obvious every time he puts out a partisan political agenda such as this one instead of putting out a serious plan for how government should spend taxpayers' money. The President's budget does nothing to reform Washington's entitlement spending. Is this really the legacy the President wants to leave for America's young people? The White House has called this plan ``Opportunity for All.'' There is no opportunity in this budget. It is just more debt, more taxes, more accounting gimmicks, budget tricks so the President does not have to make the tough, responsible decisions one would expect of the President of the United States. On energy exports and on the budget, the President should be taking opportunities to solve some of the real challenges facing our country, not letting them pass him by. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor also to talk about a letter I got from Wyoming from a constituent, Traci, who lives in Rock Springs, WY. She is very concerned about the health care law. It is interesting because she writes after hearing on the news last week a clip of Secretary Sebelius. It is a clip where Secretary Sebelius claims there is no indication that the ACA is responsible for any job loss. Traci in Rock Springs, WY, sees Secretary Sebelius on television and wants to let the country know--and I am doing that for Traci today-- that the Secretary is wrong. Traci says: ``My life is a prime example. Let me explain just how the ACA has destroyed my life.'' The quote she is referencing is Secretary Sebelius last week said: ``There is absolutely no evidence, and every economist will tell you this, that there is any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.'' It almost seems like a deliberate deception, an effort by the Secretary to mislead the American people, saying: Who are you going to believe, Secretary Sebelius or your own two eyes when you see what is happening in your own communities? That is why Traci wrote to me from Rock Springs, WY. Traci said she works full time. She also maintains a number of part- time jobs. She has a master's degree. She says: ``Once the ACA was passed, I saw the writing on the wall, and so did the companies I work for.'' Isn't it interesting that Traci in Rock Springs, WY, could see the writing on the wall, the companies she worked for could see the writing on the wall, and yet the Democrats in this body who voted for this law couldn't see the writing on the wall. She said she had health insurance and that these companies wouldn't have had to provide her with anything because she had insurance-- wouldn't have had to provide her with anything. But they didn't know who might and might not have insurance, and they weren't taking the chance that they would have to offer health care to a large number of people. So what these companies basically did, she said, was hire a specific number of individuals full time and thus those of us who remained part-time employees have been cut way back. This is obviously impacting her wages, her take-home pay, the things that matter to her, and it seems that Democrats, including Secretary Sebelius, couldn't care less. It was interesting. I came to the floor yesterday with an article from the New York Times last week about all of these public jobs, people working for public schools, people working for community colleges, sanitation workers for communities, counties--all of these people having their hours cut, their take-home pay cut, their wages cut, and it is because of the health care law, specifically because of the health care law. Traci continues: I can't believe in a country my grandfather came to and lived the American dream is actually actively trying to prevent me from being able to do the work I want to do. The kind of work I am good at. The kind of work that others benefit from. What was the comment last week about how I am being liberated from my job to do what I truly want. It is astonishing. What she says is: I was doing what I truly wanted. But yet, according to the Democrats, according to Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, she is now being liberated from the job to do what she truly wants to do--when we have somebody with a master's degree, someone who loves to teach, and not being able to do what she truly wants to do. Continuing: And now this government is actually preventing me from what I want to do, doing what I like to do, doing what I am meant to do. This is a woman in Wyoming doing what she wants to do, what she likes to do, what she wants to do, and was meant to do as a teacher--because of this health care law. It is not only in Wyoming. I read a story on the floor yesterday of a school district in Connecticut, Meriden, CT, where the superintendent, who is on a national board of school districts, said: What am I supposed to do? If I am going to provide by law all of these part-time workers--who are working over 31 hours--health insurance, what I am going to have to do is fire five reading teachers. How can I make that decision and that tradeoff? Instead, they cut their hours to less than 30 hours a week, but yet Kathleen Sebelius says there is absolutely no evidence relating to job loss in the Affordable Care Act. My friend Traci writes: ``So Obama care--has cost me a lot of jobs, has cost me about half of my income.'' When the President of the United States is saying we need to raise the minimum wage, why is the President of the United States ignoring Traci, her income, her wages, and her take-home pay? Why is his health care law making her life worse? She said: ``So Obama care--has cost me a lot of jobs, has cost me about half of my income.'' She continues: And by the way I was one of those taxpayers that don't have any deductions generally to take other than my mortgage, so when you used to get a lot of taxes from me, by decreasing my income in half, your tax revenue is decreasing in half as well. So next time Sec. Sebelius claims that there are no indications of any job loss, you can tell her that I have lost multiple jobs and I am not being ``liberated.'' That is what the American people are facing. That is what the President of the United States denies every day when he refuses to give voice to the suffering that his health care law is causing all across this country in all 50 States. It is time that we work together, get solutions for the health care needs of this country, and not continue under what is happening with the President's health care law--which, case after case after case, is not yet giving the American people what he promised them and is giving them a lot worse. It is hurting their lives, it is hurting their health, and it is hurting their take-home pay. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I wish to speak about one of Wyoming's greatest World War II heroes, the Rev. Leonard Robinson. Leonard is a special man whose sacrifice speaks louder than his words. In 1942, less than 1 year after shipping out from Fort Bliss, TX, Robinson found himself among 75,000 American and Filipino soldiers and civilians surrendered to the Imperial Japanese Army. He was one of the fortunate to survive the barbaric 65 mile, 5-day Bataan Death March. Those who were unable to keep up with the march were either beaten or shot by Japanese soldiers. Robinson was held as a prisoner of war for almost 3\1/2\ years. He survived the Bataan Death March, disease, malnutrition, slave labor and torture through his faith in God. Both spiritually and physically, Reverend Robinson credits the Bible with saving his life during his time as a prisoner of war. It is through his faith that he persevered through one of the greatest atrocities committed against our soldiers. As a prisoner of war, Leonard would often recite Psalm 23 to get him through his struggle. Rev. Leonard Robinson's life has been a journey of war, suffering, hope and peace. Leonard embraced faith in his darkest hours, showed a commitment to duty when all else was lost, and held dear to the memory of his brothers in arms who did not return. In his battered billfold, Leonard kept a roster of his unit and the names of the fallen soldiers. He is a living testament to the often overlooked sacrifices that make our men and women in uniform America's greatest treasure. Today, Reverend Robinson is being honored at the Casper Area Chamber of Commerce ``Hiring a Hero'' luncheon. The event's goal is to promote veteran employment through recognizing our service men and women who have triumphed over adversity with a proven ability to overcome challenges and obstacles through strength and determination. I do not know of a better example than my friend and my surgical patient Rev. Leonard Robinson. He epitomizes the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, late in the day on Friday--after reporters had gone home for the weekend--the Obama administration quietly released its new Medicare Advantage payment rates. The cuts the President wants to make to this program are potentially devastating to millions of Americans. The next morning the New York Times' headline read: ``U.S. Proposes Cuts to Rates in Payments for Medicare.'' Politico wrote about it too. They said: The Obama Administration is proposing a major cut in 2015 payments to Medicare Advantage. Fifteen million Americans depend on these health insurance plans the President wants to cut. Instead of listening to seniors and investing in a program that works well, the Obama administration is doing everything conceivable to make sure Medicare Advantage fails. Back in December the press gave President Obama the Lie of the Year Award for his statement that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Millions of people across America have now gotten letters saying their insurance plans are being canceled because of the Democrats' health care law. By cutting Medicare Advantage, I tell my colleagues, the Obama administration is now ensuring that even more Americans can't keep the health care plan they like. Twenty-nine percent of all Medicare patients have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage. There is a reason for that. The Medicare Advantage Program lives up to its name by delivering clear advantages. The plans give extra benefits such as dental coverage, vision coverage, hearing benefits, wellness programs, and other benefits that are important to our seniors. Sometimes they offer smaller copayments, lower deductibles, and less out-of-pocket costs than the traditional Medicare Program does. Sometimes seniors even pay a higher monthly premium for these extra benefits, but often the benefits are financed through plan savings due to the programs and the way they work. For many seniors Medicare Advantage is a good option. It is the right option for them. These are people who don't have a lot of money but who still want the peace of mind that comes with good health insurance. Those seniors are now facing much higher costs or lower benefits because of the Obama administration's decisions rolled out last Friday night. Because of this proposal and the administration's way to try to sneak it out on Friday, seniors are concerned and anxious about what the administration is also hiding. Ever since the President and Democrats in Congress passed their health care law, they have been going after seniors who rely on Medicare. They raided a total of over $700 billion from Medicare--and we discussed that during the debate over the health care law. The money was taken from seniors on Medicare not to strengthen Medicare, not to secure the future of Medicare but to start a whole new government program for other people. There is a whole new bureaucracy, and it has been created by Washington Democrats in the health care law. ObamaCare specifically targeted the Medicare Advantage Program, significant amounts of direct and indirect payment cuts totaling over $300 billion. That is 43 percent of the total Medicare cuts, just for this one program. So 29 percent of America's seniors rely on Medicare Advantage. Because about 29 percent of seniors on Medicare are in Medicare Advantage, they are responsible for 43 percent of the cuts. Because of these cuts and other changes in the law, fewer private health care plans are going to be able to participate in Medicare Advantage in the future. That means a number of things. It means some people who rely on these plans are going to find out their plan is being canceled entirely. Some people in Iowa--thousands of people in Iowa--have already gotten letters canceling their Medicare Advantage plan. The Kaiser Family Foundation looked at what the President's health care law does to seniors and they said that about a one-half million patients will lose their existing coverage--seniors on Medicare Advantage. These seniors are going to have fewer options to get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. More of these people are going to be forced into a one-size-fits-all government plan. They are going to lose the insurance they had, insurance they liked and that worked for them. Some people may find their new insurance network doesn't include the doctors they had before. We have seen this happening all across the country. As the major provider of Medicare Advantage had to try to make it all work, they had to eliminate many doctors from their plans, so that those doctors are not going to be able to keep their patients and those patients are not going to be able to keep their doctors, in spite of what the President told the American people when he looked into the camera and said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. A lot of these people are going to see their costs increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation says the average out-of-pocket limit for Medicare Advantage plans is going to increase by $464 this year. The President and Washington Democrats said their health care plan was going to save people money. That is what the President told the country. That is why he said he did this whole health care law. He said it was going to save people money. That is what people wanted. The President told people what they wanted to hear, but he failed to give them what he promised. That is why his credibility ratings are down. That is why people believe he misled them intentionally, and that is why this administration is viewed to be incompetent by a majority of Americans. It turns out costs continue to go up because of the law. This new round of cuts to Medicare Advantage is just another example of how the health care law is wrecking our health care system, not fixing it. America's health care system wasn't working before, but the President and the law Democrats voted for has made it worse. Medicare is headed toward bankruptcy, but the Obama administration has rejected bipartisan solutions to reform and to strengthen the program. Through cuts such as the ones announced last Friday, the President's health care law takes money from Medicare and uses it to pay for something else. There was actually a double data dump that occurred on Friday: the Medicare Advantage cuts that were announced late in the day, and then later than that the CMS--the Medicare/Medicaid services for the country--came out with their report and it reported that two-thirds of small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees would see their prices go up because of the health care law--two-thirds of small businesses. These are ones that by law don't have to provide health insurance--with employees of less than 50, they don't have to, by law, supply it, but they often do supply it. They do supply that insurance. I think about 17 million people get insurance that way, through work--businesses that are not mandated to supply the insurance, but they do it to get good workers. As a result, what they are seeing is that their rates are going up. So that was part of the double data dump that occurred on Friday. It was interesting to see a note that came out of the Democrats' lunch meeting today. It was just reported in Roll Call magazine. It said: ``A group of Senate Democrats is expected to launch a counteroffensive in favor of ObamaCare on Wednesday, a response to persistent attacks on the law from their Republican counterparts.'' First, I will point out the attacks on the law are coming from American citizens all around the country. It is what we hear at townhall meetings and it is what we hear as we travel around the country, people whose families are noting that they are paying more and getting less, losing their doctors and losing their insurance. But the report in Roll Call says: Democrats discussed the new endeavor touting benefits of the Affordable Care Act during Tuesday's weekly caucus lunch to a warm reception, according to Connecticut's Christopher S. Murphy, who is one of the senators leading the effort. A Senate Democrat aide said the formal rollout will come Wednesday. I welcome the opportunity to hear what the Democrats have to say because the damage being done by this health care law to people all across the country is significant. It is interesting because all we need to do is turn to Friday's New York Times, Robert Pear, an excellent writer for the Times, who had, I thought, a fascinating story. He took two pages of the paper: ``Public Sector Capping Part-Time Hours . . . '' Public sector capping part-time hours. Why? Right here in the headline: ``to Skirt Health Care Law.'' Let me start: ``Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country''--we are not talking about businesses or fast food chains; we are talking about cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country--``have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees . . .'' Why? ``to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say. The cuts to public sector employment, which has failed to rebound since the recession''--it says right here-- ``could serve as a powerful political weapon for Republican critics of the health care law, who claim it is creating a drain on the economy.'' It is creating a drain on the economy. We have two folks in the picture in Medina, OH, working on a trash truck. One of the gentlemen talks about his hours being limited to 29 hours. He called it ``a hit to his wallet.'' The President is fighting to talk about raising the minimum wage, when people are actually losing take-home pay. It is impacting their wages, the health care law is. It is impacting how much money they take home at the end of the week. The next page talks about somebody who works as a clerk in the parks department saw her hours drop from 38 a week to 35 and then to 29. Why? Because of the health care law and the 30-hour limit. It is interesting to go through the list of the different jobs of people who are losing hours, who want to work. These are hard-working Americans who are having their hours cut--public sector workers, people who work for cities, counties, public schools, community colleges. The list goes on: police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers, and part-time professors; office clerks, sanitation workers, park inspectors--all in all, people who are being hurt because of the President's health care law and the mandates and the way it is put together by this President and the Democrats who voted for it. It is interesting to see the Senator from Connecticut mentioned here as leading the effort, and I would recommend to him this article by Robert Pear in Friday's New York Times, who goes specifically to the core of what is happening in Connecticut, in that Senator's home State. It says: Mark Benigni, the superintendent of schools in Meriden, CT--a public school, public sector--and a board member of the American Association of School Administrators said in an interview that the new health care law is having ``unintended consequences for school systems across the Nation.'' This health care law is full of unintended consequences. Now we have someone who is a board member for the American Association of School Administrators saying that the health care law is having unintended consequences for school systems across the Nation. He specifically says, in Connecticut, as in many States--this is the article now: In Connecticut, as in many States, significant numbers of part-time school employees work more than 30 hours a week and do not receive health benefits. Quoting the superintendent in schools in Meriden, CT: Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers? Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees? The superintendent goes on to say: If I had to cut five reading teachers to pay for health benefits for substitute teachers, I am not sure that would be best for our students. So I would ask the President of the United States: What do you want? These are the choices that because of your health care law, crammed down the throats of the American people, you are asking the public sector of our country to make. Get rid of five reading teachers in Meriden, CT, to pay for expensive health insurance policies for substitute teachers. That superintendent is trying to say, I am not sure that what the law requires would be best for our students. I think this law was not well-thought-out, was not well planned. So I will be interested tomorrow to see Senate Democrats come to the floor with their ObamaCare PR counteroffensive and explain to the American people why they are being faced with a disastrous Web site rollout 4 days after the President told the American people it will be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill and you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. Let them explain why 5 million people then got letters from insurance companies saying their insurance policies have been canceled; why the Web site failure is just the tip of the iceberg that the American people are seeing right now in terms of premiums going up, canceled policies, can't keep their doctor, higher out-of-pocket costs, higher copays, higher deductibles, all in spite of the President's glowing promises which, in my opinion, were made to deceive the American people in an effort to pass a health care law which many people see as bad for patients, bad for providers, and bad for the taxpayers. I will continue to come to the floor and talk about what I hear as I go home to Wyoming each week in terms of a health care law which is not providing the patients what they asked for, what they need, and what they were promised. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO. Let's think about the speech the President gave in 2009. He came to Congress. He wanted to talk about health care reform. He talked about why it was so urgent that the Congress pass health care reform. He said: ``There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.'' So in 2009 the President said 30 million Americans could not get coverage. The Congressional Budget Office just comes out and says: Ten years in the future--15 years after the President gives his speech--31 million Americans with no insurance. Yet we will have spent trillions of dollars, and yet it will not fix so big of a problem that we know we need to deal with--health care in America--and this present law, this enormous law, this 2,700-page law, has completely failed to deal with the reason the President said we had to deal with this in 2009. Fifteen years later, the same numbers--30 million; over 30 million in 2024. How is that a victory for uninsured Americans? How can the President say this law has succeeded? How is it a sign that the health care law is working in the way it is supposed to work? On top of that, middle-class people all across the country are paying more because of the health care law. Their premiums have gone up. Their deductibles have gone up. Their copayments have gone up. Millions of hard-working Americans have had their insurance policies canceled because of the law. And the administration is still working on the Web site, in spite of what the President may say about it. The President says it is working as it is supposed to. On this and so many issues, the President continues to be wrong, and the American people see it. The Web site is not working. The health care law clearly is not working. It is not working the way he promised. It is not working the way the American people need health care to work for them in this country. It is time for the administration to stop sneaking out these changes under the cover of darkness, in blog posts. If the President is going to make a change, why doesn't he come and tell the American people what he is going to do? It is time for the Democrats to stop the four-Pinocchio talking points. It is time for folks to be honest about the failings of the health care law. It is time to eliminate this terrible health care law and replace it with real reform that gives people better access to quality, affordable health care--the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. I yield the floor.