Floor Statements

I yield back all time.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, with regard to the health care law, the proof has come out today. The administration has been cooking the books. That is not just me saying it. It has come out all across the press. USA Today, just out: ``Obama administration gave bad health exchange numbers.'' Associated Press: ``Oops, administration erred on health law signups.''

Let's take a look at this. The Department of Health and Human Services said Thursday--this is reading from USA Today--it made a mistake in how it calculated enrollments under the Affordable Care Act, including 400,000 dental plans in its figures for medical plans. Those dental plans allow the Obama administration to claim more than 7 million enrollments and 7 million was long considered the magic number, the magic number that would allow the new health insurance exchanges to be sustainable. What does the Secretary of Health and Human Services say? Today she said this mistake is unacceptable. I agree with the Secretary.

This mistake is unacceptable, but it is not a surprise to the American people. We have questioned a long time what numbers the administration was putting out. I think it is fascinating that the administration has continued to lower and lower the numbers as more and more information and research has been done, and they can hide it no longer that they were cooking the books. Earlier today Bloomberg went up to the--with the story based on analysis from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee found the Obama administration has included people who purchased this stand-alone dental coverage and now HHS has admitted the duplicity. Let's take a look at this. On May 1 Health and Human Services released exchange enrollment information for a period from October 1, 2013, through April 19, 2014. At the time Health and Human Services said over 8 million people had selected a plan through an exchange, either the State or Federal exchange.

In the report, HHS also disclosed 1.1 million selected to stand-alone dental plans through the Federal exchanges. A footnote in that report said totals for stand-alone dental plans do not include individuals who are enrolled in the marketplace plans that provide integrated medical and dental coverage. So then on May 21, and after previously touting the 8.1 million exchange enrollees, Health and Human Services decided they would stop issuing additional reports. No more monthly ObamaCare exchange enrollment information. September 18, in testimony before the House Oversight Committee, the CMS Administrator, Marilyn Tavenner, testified that there were 7.3 million people enrolled in the health insurance marketplace coverage as of August 15. Remember the magic number for saying this was a sustainable program was still 7 million.

When we take a look at the oversight committee's analysis it shows nearly 400,000 of these enrollees didn't purchase insurance through the exchange for health care, rather stand-alone dental coverage. That takes the total number to under 7 million.

On November 10, earlier this month, Secretary Burwell said there were 7.1 million exchange enrollees as of the end of October. However, she also failed to break out the coverage of those stand-alone dental insurance policies, indicating the true number as of last month, likely closer to 6.7 million or 6.8 million individuals.

The nearly 20 percent drop in the exchange enrollees suggests that once many people learn about the ObamaCare problems, extremely high deductibles, narrow networks, they stop paying. They stop paying their premium in spite of the fact that there continues to be large government subsidies they are receiving. This drop is likely the central reason HHS dramatically lowered its exchange estimates earlier this month saying that by the end of the next year, instead of the 13 million people predicted by the Congressional Budget Office that there would be about only 9.1 million people enrolled.

I have heard from my colleague from Connecticut who came and told an individual story, but the health care law overall remains very unpopular. It is so unpopular that as of earlier this week and all of the polling ever done about the health care law, it is more unpopular now than ever before. Popularity is at an alltime low and unpopularity, disapproval is at an alltime high. Why would that be? There are a number of reasons. One is the front page of the New York Times the other day. November 15, cost of coverage under the care act set to increase. President Obama stood before the American people and said under his plan the cost of insurance policies would go down $2,500 per family. They have not gone down. They headed in the other direction, and again this year the cost of coverage under the health care act is set to increase. It is no surprise people are concerned when the President tells them one thing and something else happens, they question the President.

There are a number of reasons it is not popular. That is just one. The

President's solutions of putting many more people on Medicaid under the health care law, a program that has already failed and is failing and continues to be a problem--the front page of the Wall Street Journal, Friday, 14 of November, ``As More Join Medicaid, Health Systems Feel Strain''--stories about people who can't get care, people who are providers who can't afford to provide the care for Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is so low. That is the President's solution-- force more people on to Medicaid because the President's focus during all of these discussions has been on coverage. As a doctor I will tell you the focus should be on the word ``care.'' People want care, and they know what they want. They know what they need in health care reform.

They want affordable care, quality care, and choice. That is what a Republican plan will look like to replace and strip out the terrible parts of this health care law. Then for people living all across the country in rural communities--I know in the Presiding Officer's State and in mine, we know what impact the loss of a rural hospital has on that community.

But yet, front page, USA Today, last weekend, November 14 to 16, ``Rural Hospitals in Critical Condition.'' ObamaCare critics say the law is speeding up the demise of the facilities. There is a map of the United States, a list of 43 hospitals that have closed since January of 2010 as a result of the health care law.

You say: Is it as a result of the health care law? I believe it is, because it was Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects of the health care law, who said and recently wrote that between now and the year 2020, up to 1,000 hospitals in the United States were likely to close. We know what the impact of the cuts that happen to our seniors on Medicare as a result of the health care law will have to rural hospitals, where a disproportionate number of the patients are seniors on Medicare. The hospitals cannot sustain themselves.

That was part of the original budget numbers as they looked at the health care law, as we debated it on this Senate floor and said: Please do not pass this, Democrats--who one by one by one voted for the health care law--because it is going to impact our rural hospitals.

Now we see 43 hospitals in rural communities all around the country and tell stories of people who could not get care, had to travel such a long distance in that critical hour after a heart attack, were unable to survive. So the health care law continues to be very unpopular across the country. Yes, it is possible for colleagues to come to the floor and tell a story about one individual whose life may have been improved as a result of the health care law. But across the country, there are many people who are finding they cannot keep their doctor, they cannot keep their child's pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their local community because of the specific components of the health care law which have caused so much damage and wreaked havoc in communities all around America.

I continue to hear from people in Wyoming who have lost the insurance that worked for them and they liked. They had to buy other insurance, much more expensive, that covered things they did not need, did not want, and cannot afford. Many now find themselves for the first time without insurance when they had it before. It worked for them and their families.

So that is why all across the country, people are saying: This health care law is not working for me. That is why the signups are down and the belief is that fewer people are going to sign up because for them they do not feel they are getting good value. They see what they are going to have to pay out of pocket for deductibles, what they have to pay out of pocket for copays, what their premiums are. As a result, they are saying: No, thank you.

Even with the subsidies, Health and Human Services has significantly lowered their predictions of how many people will sign up for the health care law this year. That is in spite of the fact that the fines are going up.

Then, on top of all of this, there is a health care MIT economist, Professor Jonathan Gruber, who has made comments that are disparaging of American citizens. He has said not just once but time and time again, as the videos continue to come out of this Gruber miniseries of TV videos, that this health care law was sold to the American people by trying to confuse them. He has questioned their intelligence. It was Nancy Pelosi who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

American people are furious about the way this administration has treated them, has behaved toward them, and has acted upon their willingness to believe an administration and believe a Speaker of the House at a time people wanted health care reform in America. People did not get what they wanted. They did not get what they were promised.

So, today, I come to the floor to say to my colleague who just spoke about the health care law, that perhaps for the folks he mentioned it has worked. We want health care to work for people all across the country so they can get the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is what they want. So today, the proof comes out, the administration has been cooking the books. As USA Today says, the Obama administration gave bad health exchange numbers and the Associated Press starts its story on this very same topic with one word, ``Oops!''

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this past Saturday the open enrollment period for the Obama health care law opened in terms of the health care exchange. People who bought health insurance through healthcare.gov or through their State's exchange are finally allowed to see how much their insurance is going to cost next year. Things were pushed back beyond the election so people wouldn't be able to find out before the election what it was going to cost. So the Obama administration had all of this information for awhile, but they intentionally kept it secret until after election day. Now people get to see the prices, and many people across the country are absolutely in shock at the increased costs of the health care law.

Millions of Americans are learning their health insurance is going to cost them a lot more. As a matter of fact, when the exchanges opened November 15, on the front page of the New York Times: ``Cost of Coverage Under Care Act Set to Increase.'' The article says:

The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing

that many Americans with health insurance bought under the

Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases

next year--in some cases as much as 20 percent.

Substantial price increases, 20 percent.

For some people it is going to be even higher than that.

The Wall Street Journal took a look at it and they had a large story with a picture on Friday and the headline is: ``Consumers Still Confused Ahead of Insurance Sign-ups.''

The article describes a man named Bob Sorey, who is a real estate salesperson in Mount Juliet, TN. He had a plan through Blue Cross Blue Shield, and he says his premiums are going up nearly 25 percent next year. He told the newspaper, ``I just can't absorb that.''

President Obama promised the American people they would save $2,500 per year per family under his health care law. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, went on ``Meet the Press'' at one point and said everyone's rates would go down--everyone, she said. What does the President have to say now? What will he tell those people whose rates have continued to go up? What does he say to this real estate broker in Tennessee who can't absorb a 20-percent increase?

In Anchorage, AK, a typical plan is going to cost 28 percent more next year. That is for the second cheapest silver plan, what they call the benchmark plan.

In Minneapolis rates are going up almost 19 percent, and that is just for the premiums. For many people their copays are going up and their deductibles are going up as well. In some parts of Georgia 70 percent of the plans sold on the exchange have deductibles of at least $2,500. Is that affordable for people? Millions of Americans will be paying more in premiums as well as more out of their pocket--millions of people such as Bob Sorey, the real estate broker in Tennessee, who, as he said, just can't absorb the cost.

These skyrocketing premiums may explain why the President's health care law is more unpopular right now than ever before.

According to the latest Gallup poll, only 37 percent of Americans approve of the law. It was supposed to get more popular. That is what the Democrats on this floor told people across the country and told us. Instead, the opposite has happened. People see how much their costs have increased because of the law, and many people are learning that having coverage under the law is not the same as having care. There is a difference between coverage and care.

That is what USA Today found out. They had a front-page article last Friday with the headline: ``Rural Hospitals in Critical Condition.''

So not just the cost of coverage under the care act set to increase, but rural hospitals are in critical condition.

Obama critics say the law is speeding up the demise of rural facilities, of rural hospitals. That is the problem.

The article talks about a small hospital in Georgia that had to close in the spring of last year because of all the new burdens of the health care law. People in that town now have to travel many miles to get to another hospital in another town. One of those people was Bill Jones. He was a peanut and cotton farmer who lived about 9 miles away from the old hospital. Bill suffered a heart attack 1 month after the hospital had to close. The ambulance had to take him to another hospital in

a town further away. I can tell my colleagues, as a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years, when someone has a heart attack, every minute counts. Bill Jones didn't survive his heart attack. Maybe he wouldn't have survived a trip to a closer hospital; we won't know that. But the hospital is gone now and it is gone because of the President's health care law. For people living in rural States such as Georgia and my own State of Wyoming, this is a terrifying prospect.

The article says that since January of 2010, more than 40 rural hospitals have closed across the country. There is a map of the country of all the places where hospitals have closed. Ezekiel Emanuel, who worked on the health care law, says that 40 hospitals is not enough. He is one of the architects of course of the President's health care law. He says that over the next 6 years, more than 1,000 hospitals will close. In more than 1,000 American communities, people will be further away from medical care. That is precious lost time for people who have heart attacks or for women with high-risk pregnancies who are further from the help they need to deliver a healthy baby. They may have coverage under the President's health care law, but that is not the same as getting the care they need.

We are also seeing that for people whom the law has pushed into Medicaid--because Medicaid, of course--the President's goal was to push more and more people into Medicaid--that pays less for services than traditional insurance companies pay. A lot of doctors and other providers can't afford to take new Medicaid patients.

There was a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal last Friday that says as more join Medicaid, health care systems feel strained.

As more join Medicaid--the President's goal--health systems feel the strain. The article says that about one-third of all primary care physicians aren't taking new Medicaid patients. One of them is Dr. Holly Abernathy. She is a family physician in Farmington, NM, and she says she just can't afford to take any new patients under the program. She says: ``I would love to see every Medicaid patient that comes through my door.'' She also says: ``If you give people coverage, they should be able to utilize it.''

Premiums are going up, out-of-pocket costs are going up. Hospitals are closing. Doctors are having to turn away patients--all because of the President's health care law.

ObamaCare was too long, too complicated, too expensive, and it took away too much from the people who like the care and the coverage they had before the law was passed. That is why Republicans are going to vote to repeal the entire health care law.

Meanwhile, we will also vote to strip away the worst and most destructive parts of the law--parts such as the employer mandate, the arbitrary 30-hour workweek, that has been devastating to part-time workers across the country and others such as the unfair medical device tax that sends American jobs overseas and threatens lifesaving innovation.

Republicans are going to keep fighting for Americans who have been harmed by the President's health care law. We are going to keep offering the real solutions that people wanted all along--access to the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. That is what the American people are demanding, and that is what they deserve. It is what Republicans are going to give them.

I thank the Presiding Officer, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate John Cox the Director of the Wyoming Department of Transportation. On November 24, 2014, Director Cox will be elected as president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO. John is currently serving as the association's vice-president and has worked his way to the top through various positions in AASHTO.

Since 2005, he has continually served Wyoming as the WYDOT director. The respect for John is deep and widespread. He was appointed by Democrat Governor Dave Freudenthal and reappointed by our current Republican Governor Matt Mead.

John Cox is not your traditional State Department of Transportation director. Director Cox has a 28-year background in law enforcement. As a young patrolman, John patrolled thousands of miles on the rural roads of Wyoming. Director Cox's law enforcement background provided him with a unique perspective on the needs of rural States like Wyoming. John understands rural transportation. He also understands that our transportation system must be whole. I believe his experience and leadership will be key to the success of AASHTO and its members over the next year.

Director Cox and I have worked closely together for over a decade. When I was in the Wyoming Legislature, I chaired the Senate Transportation and Military Affairs Committee. In the Wyoming Legislature, we worked to improve our State's highways. In the U.S. Senate, we worked on the 2012 highway reauthorization bill. In 2014, Director Cox and I focused on improving the current law by cutting Washington redtape and providing flexibility and equity for rural States like Wyoming.

I look forward to continuing to work with Director Cox as all of America can now benefit from his leadership.

Madam President, I come to the floor to express my support for the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is bipartisan legislation. The House passed this bill with 31 Democrats voting for it.

Last week, Senate Republicans welcomed the news that the outgoing Senate majority leader had finally decided to let the Senate vote on this legislation and that vote is finally going to take place today. For years House and Senate Republicans have been pushing legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, but until now the outgoing Senate majority leader wouldn't even let the Senate vote on this measure. This was all part of the majority leader's efforts to protect the President and the President's agenda.

The majority leader had hoped the American people would forget about the Senate. He had hoped they would be satisfied with President Obama's job approval. Well, 2 weeks ago, the American people made it clear they have not forgotten about the Senate. The American people made it clear they are not satisfied with President Obama and his policies. Instead, the American people want the President to work with the Senate to enact bipartisan legislation to grow our and economy and to create jobs.

President Obama and Senate Democrats can do that today by supporting the bill we are approaching to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This pipeline is going to create thousands of jobs right here at home. It is not just my view, it is the view of the President's own State Department.

According to the State Department, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would support over 42,000 jobs--42,000 jobs. That is the reason many of the Nation's largest labor unions support the construction and approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In addition the pipeline would facilitate American crude oil production. Specifically, this pipeline will ship up to 100,000 barrels of oil each and every day from North Dakota and Montana. Currently there is insufficient pipeline capacity to ship oil out of North Dakota. As a consequence, oil producers must rely on railroads to ship oil out of State. Shipping crude oil by rail is more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide oil producers a cheaper shipping method and in turn encourage production of more American energy.

This pipeline will also increase our Nation's energy security. Specifically, the pipeline will provide an additional access to Canadian oil. We should welcome access to Canadian oil. Canadian oil is a far better alternative to oil from Venezuela, the Middle East or West Africa, areas of the world which don't share our values and too often work against our American interests. In contrast, Canada is a strong ally, Canada is America's top trading partner, and Canada already provides the United States with reliable and secure sources of energy.

Now is the time for President Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

As the senior Senator from Delaware, a Member of the President's own party, said last week: ``We have waited not just months but years for a decision on Keystone,'' he said. ``This is too long.''

In fact, the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for over 6 years. During this time the State Department has conducted five environmental reviews of the project. Each of the reviews has been positive. I say to President Obama: Time is up and the excuses have run out. It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a decision.

President Obama should once again acknowledge that elections have consequences. Specifically, he should signal to the American people that he has heard the message voters across this country sent just 2 weeks ago: their message of support for bipartisan legislation that grows our economy, creates jobs, puts people back to work, their message of support for legislation such as the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate and want to salute the significant leadership we have seen on this issue from the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a stalwart fighter, very focused on this issue, and focused on putting together a bipartisan coalition of supporters. Americans want the jobs, they want the energy, they want action. We have an opportunity, but we have been waiting 6 long years.

The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. It was at a meeting in the Republican conference where the President of the United States came in. I asked the specific question: When will we expect an answer so we can get moving with the jobs and the energy that the American people are asking for?

President Obama said: Well, by the end of the year. He said that almost a year and a half ago. It was the end of the year 2013 that the promise was going to be fulfilled. Now here we are halfway--beyond halfway--through 2014. Nothing yet. Not a thing from the White House, a White House held hostage by environmental extremists who are trying to block important jobs and important energy and this important project.

We are here in the Senate today and the majority leader is ready to close this place down until after the elections. He closed it down--if you count the number of days from the beginning

of August, all through August, a few days in session in September, but most of September not in session, and then all of October up through the election, you are talking 3 months, with the Senate in session for just 2 weeks. It is embarrassing. Where is the accountability? We are sure not getting it from the majority leader. The majority leader ought to bring this for a vote today. But he is not going to. He is going to shut down the Senate today, making sure these jobs are not there, that the energy is not there for the American people. The Keystone XL Pipeline bipartisan support is an excellent example of a project that could help us from the standpoint of energy security, from the standpoint of economic growth, the standpoint of helping our economy getting people back to work.

But yet the majority leader is not going to allow a vote today, 6 years in the waiting on this specific important project. I would say to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, I know our friends and colleagues from Oklahoma and Georgia are here on the floor. I want to hear their comments as well. I salute the Senator from North Dakota for his continued leadership, for his focus, and for continuing to work to make America better, in terms of jobs, in terms of the economy, and in terms of energy. I know the Senator will not stop until we finally get this project approved, completed, and constructed.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as Republicans have come to the floor week after week ever since the President's health care law was passed. I have many concerns about the way this health care law is impacting families in my home State of Wyoming as well as families all across the country. In one State after another, people are feeling the devastating side effects of the health care law.

President Obama says Democrats who voted for the health care law should, as he said, ``forcefully defend and be proud of the law.''

I heard earlier today the Kaiser Family Foundation's report being quoted. What they said is that premiums have gone up, on average, $3,500 from 2009 for family workplace coverage, plus the deductibles are higher. So premiums are up $3,500 since 2009 for family workplace coverage, and the deductibles are higher--higher money paid out-of- pocket.

The President of the United States said they would go down by $2,500 per family. Nancy Pelosi said they would go down for everyone. She was the Speaker of the House. She was the one who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Americans have found out what is in it, and they don't like it. People do not like what they see with the President's health care law. It continues to be very unpopular.

So I ask, is the President really proud that families all across the country are suffering because of his health care law and the many dangerous side effects they are now having to live with?

Let's look around the country a little bit and see what the new headlines are bringing, and there are new headlines every day. In Virginia a television station in Charlottesville, WVIR, reported on what is happening there. Last Wednesday they had a report which said that ``nearly a quarter million Virginians will have to change their insurance plans this fall.'' The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. Not in Virginia. A quarter of a million Virginians will have to change their insurance plans this fall. It is because the plans don't include all of a very long list of things Washington mandates have to be offered.

Even if a person had an insurance plan that worked well for their family, that met their needs, the President and Democrats in this body say: Sorry, you can't keep it. The President said: If you like your plan, you can keep it. What happened there? At least 27 Democrats stood on the floor of the Senate and said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That is what they said. What happened? Was this intentionally to deceive the American people? Why are nearly a quarter of a million Virginians losing their insurance plan?

The head of the Virginia Association of Health Plans says it is simple. He told the TV station: ``We're not allowed to offer those plans anymore.'' The President said they could, and now these people are being told by the law they are not allowed to even offer the plans to people who want to buy them because it works for them.

Are the Democrats in the Senate willing to forcefully defend the fact that 250,000 people in Virginia will have to buy new plans that they don't want, don't need, and many can't afford, with all of these additional provisions Washington says have to be included? To me, that is a very expensive and unnecessary side effect of the President's health care law.

But it is not just people's health care plans. People are concerned about keeping their doctors and keeping their hospitals that they go to in their own communities. Let's take a look at what happened in Connecticut, in a report that came out. Hartford Courant: ``Five Connecticut Hospitals Could Leave Anthem's Network on October 1.'' What about the people who go to those hospitals and get their health care coverage that way? What are those people supposed so do? The President said: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital. These people may be losing their hospital come October 1.

Here is another side effect of the law that is hitting middle-class Americans and their wallets. It is the part of the law that says the workweek is no longer 40 hours. Now it is just 30 hours. That is what the law says. People who are working part time have had their hours cut to below 30 hours, and they are getting lower take-home pay. I hear about this in Wyoming. I hear it from school district workers, from folks who have had their hours cut, who are having to get by with less pay because if they have their hours cut, their take-home pay goes down. It is another destructive side effect of this health care law.

It is not just Wyoming; it is happening all around the country. In Louisiana there was a report by KNOE television in Monroe last Thursday which said that 400 employees within Lincoln Parish schools--people who work within the school system--are getting their hours cut in half. Four hundred workers, one school district, Louisiana, half

the hours, half the pay. Where did the school board put the blame? They put it directly on the President's health care law. They said they can't afford the Washington-mandated health insurance for all of their workers, so they are cutting back on the hours for substitute teachers, cutting the hours for cafeteria workers, cutting the hours for custodians, for paraprofessionals who work with the kids. Is that what the President envisioned? Is that what the President means when he says ``forcefully defend and be proud''? Cutting back things for children in our schools, is that the President's solution for health care, making it harder for kids to get an education and making it harder for teachers to teach?

One custodian told the paper that it is depressing knowing his pay is about to be cut. He said, ``It's rough the way it is. Why make it harder to survive?'' That is my question to the President of the United States and to Senators on the floor who come to talk about the health care law.

Why make it harder to survive? Why, Mr. President? You said people should forcefully defend and be proud of this law. Are you proud of it, Mr. President? That is what I need to know. That is what the American public wants to know.

Is the President proud that people are getting their hours cut in half specifically because of his law? And school districts are pointing to that as the cause. Is the President proud he is making it harder for Americans to survive?

Now, some people aren't just getting their hours cut; they can't get hired in the first place because of the health care law. That is what one business owner said in an op-ed for the Charlotte Observer newspaper in Charlotte, NC. It ran September 10 and was entitled ``How ObamaCare jams a stick in my company's wheels.'' Rodney Pitts, who runs the Southern Elevator Company in North Carolina, says he wants to hire more elevator mechanics for his business, but he hasn't been able to hire anyone this year. Why? He says the main reason is because of the costs associated with the health care law and all of the requirements of the health care law. He said, ``Thousands of businesses in Charlotte and in North Carolina are in the same holding pattern.''

So people all across the country who want to work won't get that opportunity because businesses can't afford to take on all of the extra costs of the President's health care law. That is an extremely destructive side effect of the law. It is hurting American families.

This health care law is hurting our economy. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this health care law--every one. Where are the Democrats willing to forcefully defend these alarming side effects of this health care law? Is the President ready to go to North Carolina and talk to this business owner? Is the President going to say he is proud his health care law is keeping the businesses from hiring more people in North Carolina and all across the country?

This isn't the kind of health care reform the American people needed. It is not the kind of health care reform the American people wanted. People didn't want a law that forced them to get rid of the insurance which they had and liked and which worked for them and for their families. They didn't want a law that forced their local schools to cut the hours of custodians and part-time teachers, cafeteria workers, and people who look after their children. That is not how to help people in a community.

These are the tragic side effects of the President's health care law. Republicans are going to continue to talk good patient-centered reforms, reforms that get patients across the country the care they need from a doctor they choose and at a lower cost.

We are going to talk about restoring people's freedom, freedom to buy health insurance that works for them, for their families because they know what works best for them, not President Obama. We are going to talk about giving people choices, not Washington mandates. Republicans are going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these intrusive and intolerable side effects.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about one of Wyoming's distinguished citizens. John Jorgensen has devoted his life to promoting education, literacy, and the arts. This November he will be honored with the Benefactor Award from the Council for Resource Development. According to the CRD, the Benefactor Award ``recognizes individuals . . . for outstanding contributions to community colleges. The CRD Benefactor Award embodies the ideals of philanthropy, leadership, and volunteerism in the service of community, technical, and junior colleges.'' The Council only honors a handful of people each year, and I am delighted that John Jorgensen will receive this prestigious award.

John is no stranger to hard work. His ties to the community are numerous. In addition to serving as the president of Casper's Hilltop National Bank, John is also the president of the Casper College Foundation. During 25 years in this important role, he has tripled the foundation's assets. Under John's leadership the foundation has provided more than $70 million to the college for support of campus facilities, college programs, and student scholarships. The funds have provided a margin of excellence that ensures Casper College continues to be one of the finest community colleges in the country.

Casper College is just one of many organizations benefitting from John's time and talents. He leads Wyoming Reads, an organization created in his late wife Sue's memory that puts books into the hands of nearly every Wyoming first grader. He has served on the Natrona County Public Library Foundation and the Nicolaysen Art Museum board. John is a member of the Casper Rotary Club. He has a passion for the performing arts and has acted in a number of Casper College's plays, including the ``Grapes of Wrath'' and ``Death of a Salesman.''

John Jorgensen is an example of what makes America great. He has channeled his blessings and his heartbreaks into organizations that help others. Casper and Wyoming are even greater because of his contributions. My wife Bobbi joins me in congratulating John on receiving this special award from the Council for Resource Development. We are blessed to call him our friend.

Thank you, Madam President.

Facing Great Challenges

As I come to the floor today, the Senate is debating a plan by which Washington Democrats seek to restrict the First Amendment rights of American citizens--part of the Constitution. Under this proposal certain people would no longer enjoy the same right to free speech and the same right to express themselves.

I believe this amendment is a terrible idea, and it really has no chance of becoming law. Majority Leader Reid wants the vote anyway. He thinks this outrageous amendment that he dreamed up will somehow help Democrats win elections this November. The majority leader has come to the floor repeatedly to criticize and to demonize American citizens who don't share his views. It is nothing but political grandstanding and showboating.

President Obama was on ``Meet the Press'' last Sunday. The President talked about what is going on in Washington. The President said that ``people want to get stuff done.'' That is what he says the American people want from their representatives in Congress. So if the American people want us to get stuff done, why are the Democrats in the Senate so determined to do nothing? Why are they wasting time on political show votes? Why are they not allowing amendments and debate on important bills? Why are they blocking legislation that has passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and is right now sitting on Senator Reid's desk waiting for a vote?

Our Nation faces great challenges, and many Americans are hurting. Republicans have solutions that will create jobs while strengthening our energy security, improving our health care, and cutting government redtape. New numbers came out just last week that show America's labor force participation rate is at about the lowest level it has been in decades. The House of Representatives--where Republicans are in charge of the schedule--has passed more than 40 bills to help get Americans back to work. Those bills are sitting in the Senate waiting for a vote. Is that what the President means when he says people want to get stuff done?

There was a headline in Politico on Tuesday morning that read ``Majority say that President Obama a failure.'' A new poll found that 52 percent of Americans think the Obama Presidency has been a failure. So what do Washington Democrats do in response? Absolutely nothing.

People want Washington to deal with the challenges that matter most in their individual lives. We could start by doing something about the President's health care law that is causing so much harm to people across the country.

A bipartisan plan has already passed the House that would stop the employer mandate that businesses provide expensive Washington-mandated health insurance. That part of the President's health care law forces small businesses to cut hours--therefore cutting paychecks--for the workers and is also holding back hiring. We should take up that legislation here in the Senate.

We should restore people's freedom to buy health insurance that actually works for them and their families because people know what works best for them. They don't need Washington to tell them. We should replace the President's health care law with reforms that actually get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

The people I talk with back at home in Wyoming are also worried about energy costs--especially since it is starting to get colder in much of the country. Washington should be looking for ways to help Americans produce more affordable, reliable, and efficient energy right here at home. The opportunity is there. That would mean jobs for American families, and it would also mean energy security for our Nation.

We could start right now by approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. For 6 years the application has been sitting waiting for action. A bill to do that passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. Why aren't we voting on that today in the Senate? The Obama administration admits the pipeline would actually support thousands of good American jobs. The application to build the Keystone Pipeline has been stalled for 6 years. The administration should demand action today. If the President won't do it, Congress still could and should.

Congress should pass legislation to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas. Our Nation has abundant supplies of natural gas, and producers want to export it to customers around the world who are seeking it. The Obama administration has delayed the permits to let them do it. Democrats right here in the Senate have delayed the bipartisan solution that has already passed the House. We should take a vote on that bill today and pass it.

We should pass a bill that would reform the regulations blocking energy production on Federal lands.

We should end the Obama administration's pointless and destructive war on coal and let the men and women across this country who work in that industry get their jobs and their lives back.

American businesses are waiting to create jobs. The only thing standing in the way is the Senate majority leader. Senate Democrats don't want to vote. They don't want to vote to help the millions of Americans who are out of the labor force. They would rather protect the Washington bureaucracy--a bureaucracy that slows down and stifles economic growth.

Cutting through the redtape to help Americans get back to work is one of the top priorities of Republicans, and it should be the top priority of every Senator in this body. We could do it by passing a bill--one that has already passed the House--that would rein in excessive regulations that make it tougher for small businesses to invest, to grow, and to hire.

We could pass another bill from the House that helps businesses defend themselves against abusive patent lawsuits. That is going to help small businesses hire more people and help them grow. There were 130 Democrats in the House who voted in favor of it. Why aren't we voting on that today? We cannot get a simple up-or-down vote in the Senate. The majority leader will not bring it to the floor. Why won't he allow it?

There is one bill after another that Republicans have offered, Republicans have passed in the House of Representatives--bipartisan bills--and the Senate Democrats don't want to talk about them. They don't want to talk about Republican ideas for tax reform that would lower tax rates and make the whole tax system simpler, more fair. They don't want to talk about Republican ideas to strengthen and stabilize the entitlement programs--such as Social Security and Medicare--to make sure they are there for future generations. They certainly don't want to talk about Republican ideas to address Washington's out-of-control debt.

Those are the kinds of measures we should be talking about today on the floor of the Senate. That is the legislation which Republicans have introduced and which we are going to keep fighting for in the Senate. That is what the American people are talking about when they say they want Washington to get stuff done. They don't mean more terrible ideas like the President's health care law and its multiple damaging side effects. They don't mean job-killing redtape and Washington mandates. They don't mean political show votes that would restrict Americans' free speech.

President Obama and Democrats in the Senate have turned their backs on middle-class families who are desperately in need of jobs. Democrats want to waste time while they are trying to salvage their political careers. Republicans want to help get Americans back to work.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know many Senators were back home over the last number of weeks talking to and listening to their constituents about issues on their minds. I was also at home. As a doctor and as a Senator, I heard from many people in my home State of Wyoming who have a lot of concerns about the health care law and the devastating side effects the law has on them.

Over the past few weeks there have been headlines just about every day all across the country with bad news about the health care law and its impact on the American people. Just this morning the local newspaper, The Hill, has a headline: ``Support for ObamaCare continues to fall.''

Public approval of ObamaCare continued to sink this summer,

issuing the latest warning for vulnerable Democrats who will

face voters this fall after backing the law.

It says that just 35 percent of voters now support the health care law. This is a monthly poll done by the Kaiser Health Foundation which was released yesterday.

It says:

Healthcare remains one of the most important issues in

midterm elections, ranking only behind the economy and jobs

as voters' top issue.

I talk about health care repeatedly because I am a physician. I have taken care of patients for 25 years in my home State of Wyoming, and I have taken care of families from all around the State. They come to me with their concerns about the health care law.

President Obama says the Democrats who voted for the law should, as he said, ``forcefully defend and be proud of the law.'' Is the President proud of the ways families across America are suffering because of his health care law and the dangerous side effects people continue to face?

Here is a headline from last Friday, September 5, front page of the Wall Street Journal. It says: ``Hacker Breaches Part Of Federal Health Site.'' A computer hacker breached the Federal health site. The article says the hacker broke into part of the healthcare.gov Web site in July--in July--and uploaded malicious software, according to Federal officials.

The administration now admits it. It goes on to say that ``the break- in raised concerns among Federal officials because of how easily the intruder gained access and how much damage could have occurred.'' This is a concern Republicans have warned about for a long time.

The Obama administration didn't do the basic things any business in America would have done to protect people and their personal information. According to this report, part of the problem in this case was that the Web site's developers never--and taxpayers have paid plenty to these developers--bothered to change a default password for the system. No one can believe it. Hackers didn't have to go around some complicated security system or break in through a back door. Oh, no. The Obama administration official admitted to the Wall Street Journal there was a door left open--a door left open.

The Obama administration said that so far the hackers haven't stolen anybody's personal information that they know of. Apparently, they didn't know about this breach for weeks. The hacker walked in through an open door in July, and the Obama administration didn't know anything about it until August 25. Healthcare.gov stores huge amounts of personal and private information about people, including their access information and their health care information, and people have a right to know the information is secure.

Where are the Democrats on the floor of the Senate today ready to forcefully defend leaving the door open for these hackers?

Here is another headline from the September 2 New York Times: ``Bracing for New Challenges in Year Two of Health Care Law.''

We all remember how terrible the launch of the health care program was last fall. We remember right after the President sat down with Bill Clinton and he said: Oh, easier to use than Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone bill, and you can keep your doctor.

America knows those things weren't true.

We all remember the terrible launch last October. The new head of the exchange talked about what he expects it to be like this year, year two. They have had a full year now to get ready and fix the problems. Yet this Obama administration official just recently told the New York Times: ``In some respects, it's going to be more complicated. Part of me thinks that this year is going to make last year look like the good old days.''

America is not ready to go back to the Obama Web site good old days. That is what the Obama administration's person in charge of the health care exchange told the New York Times. Are the Democrats going to come to the floor and forcefully defend this kind of chaos and confusion with the health care enrollment for a second year in a row? It is another disgraceful side effect of the President's unworkable, unmanageable health care law.

I will give one more example of what the American people are learning about how the health care law is harming them individually. Insurance companies have been releasing their preliminary rates for 2015, and in many places for many people, premiums are going up. According to the consulting group PricewaterhouseCoopers, premiums are going up about 8 percent on average across the country. That is not what Democrats promised when they wrote the health care law. Democrats in Washington, here in the Senate, promised the rates would go down. President Obama went around the country and said people would see their health care costs go down by an average of $2,500 per family per year. Nancy Pelosi went on ``Meet the Press'' and said rates will go down for everyone. That hasn't happened. Premiums have gone up. Copays are up. Deductibles have gone up. Out-of-pocket costs have gone up for millions of Americans.

As chairman of the Republican policy committee, one of the things I do is look around the country and try to find out how the policies that come out of Washington affect people all across the country. I have traveled over the past month and heard from many people that the President's health care law is hurting them individually and costing them more.

One place people are really being hurt by the health care law is Alaska. Here is a headline from The Hill newspaper on Monday: ``Alaska insurance rates set to spike.'' According to the article, Alaskans buying health insurance through the State's exchange can expect a surprise spike of more than 30 percent on average.

Another place being hit is Iowa. PricewaterhouseCoopers says the average person in Iowa who buys health insurance through the exchange is going to pay 11.5 percent more next year in premiums. For others, premiums will be as high as 14 percent higher. Those Iowa families aren't getting a cut of $2,500 as promised by the Democrats who voted for this health care law and as the President said. What they are getting instead is an increase of 14 percent--more money out of their pockets.

We can go round and round with individual stories. They are paying more. So it is no surprise then that today the headline in The Hill newspaper is that it is more unpopular now and continues to lose popularity.

Then the impact. It is astonishing. I picked up today's Investor's Business Daily. The headline is ``ObamaCare Spurs College Blues For Working Students.'' A lot of students have to work their way through college. Page 1, above the fold, ``ObamaCare Goes To College.''

More than 200 colleges and universities--

This is because of the law, the way they define part-time work and full-time work, and full-time is defined as 30 hours.

``ObamaCare Goes To College.''

More than 200 colleges and universities have restricted

work hours for students, for part-time faculty, or both,

citing the costs of complying with the employer mandate

related to the President's health care law.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, what I do is come to the floor to talk about the concerns I have for Americans who are concerned about their jobs, concerned about the economy, concerned about their opportunity to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. They see all of these issues as troublesome under the President's health care law. So I am going to continue to talk about this and the impact this has on the American family. I am going to talk about restoring people's freedom to buy insurance that works for them and their families because they know what is best for them, not the Obama administration. I am going to talk about reforms that get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. I am going to talk about giving people choices, not Washington mandates.

Republicans are going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these tragic side effects.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on September 16, the Boys and Girls Club of Central Wyoming will celebrate their 16th Annual Awards and Recognition Breakfast. During the event, they will honor a member of the community who has significantly contributed to the Boys and Girls Club. I am delighted that this year's honoree is Joe Scott, a Casper, Wyoming-native, entrepreneur, and philanthropist.

Joe was born and raised in Casper. He attended St. Anthony's Catholic School, East Junior High, and Kelly Walsh High School. His uncle, Jack Sullivan, put Joe to work on the family's ranch in Wyoming's Shirley Basin. Joe collected his first paycheck when he was in the third grade and has continued to work hard ever since. As a young man he worked as an oil pumper for McMurry Oil Company. The McMurry's could always count on Joe to get the job done. Joe stayed with the company through the 1990s as they discovered and developed the Jonah Field. Following his long career with McMurry Oil, he used his tenacity and entrepreneurial spirit to found energy ventures, including a water treatment company and a mud motor company.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming are grateful for Joe Scott's contributions to their critically important mission. The club offers programs and services that promote and enhance the development of our youth. Their activities provide the youth with a sense of competence, usefulness and belonging.

My wife Bobbi joins me in extending our congratulations to Joe and thanking him for his dedication to Wyoming and its youth. He is the perfect example of a citizen who has truly paid back to his community.

Madam President, I have come to the floor to discuss some

of the issues related to the health care law and the side effects of the health care law. I see my friend and colleague from the State of Connecticut--a place where I spent 5 years as part of my residency program training--has just spoken on this issue. So I followed the developments in that State quite a bit and talked to many of the physicians who practice there on a regular basis, some of whom I have studied with for up to 5 years. So they have routinely sent me articles about the failure of the President's health care law in Connecticut-- because remember, the President said, actually, that the costs would go down, not go up under the President's health care law. I think he said $2,500 per family per year. Nancy Pelosi on ``Meet The Press'' said costs would go down for everyone--down for everyone. She didn't say they would go up a little. She didn't say they would go up at all. She said they would go down for everyone, and this was in the last 2 years.

I come to the floor noting that just the other day in Hartford, CT, the headline story said that one of the insurance companies was seeking a 12\1/2\-percent rate increase. The Norwich Bulletin says: ``Anthem seeks 12.5 percent rate increase.''

I heard my colleague from Connecticut say the insurance commissioner wouldn't allow it to go up that much but did allow it to go up and said it was going up; is that what my colleague just said on the floor? Perhaps not as much as this, but certainly the President said they were going to go down by $2,500 a family. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said they were going to go down for everyone. And in Connecticut people who believed the President, people who believed the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, realized they weren't told the truth. Rates even after this 12.5-percent request was reviewed and lessened--the rates still went up.

So I look at these headlines.

Another story out in the Daily Caller: ``Obamacare Update: Now EVEN MORE States Report Double-Digit Premium Hikes.'' They talk about Vermont and they talk about Arizona, States where premiums are going up over 10 percent.

I looked at the story in Politico last month: Connecticut exchange reports breach--breach of security of individual people, hundreds of names left on the sidewalk, with Social Security numbers, with addresses, with information about them.

A story coming out of the Connecticut Mirror: ``CT's Latinos face hurdles in enrolling in ObamaCare.'' It says: ``No group of people in Connecticut is more likely to be uninsured than the state's Latinos, and ObamaCare won't change that.''

I just heard from my colleague that it is working. Not according to the press in his home State.

July 1, 2014, the Connecticut Mirror:

Federal auditors question Access Health CT's internal

controls.

Federal auditors reported Tuesday--

These are not individual stories of one person or another, because we know all across Connecticut there have been families who have been dropped, people who have had problems, individuals who are being hurt.

``Access Health CT says it will start calling thousands of customers Friday''--this was earlier this month-- ``. . . 5,784 customers were identified as having incorrect tax credits'' under this program that my colleague says is working in his home State.

It says: ``About 3,900 customers,'' in the State of Connecticut ``were told that they qualified for government-funded Medicaid coverage when, in fact, they did not.''

It says: ``An unknown number of customers got a bill from their insurance company that was more than they expected . . . ''

`` . . . 903 customers were dropped by their insurer.''

These are the facts.

So I hear that the Federal auditors are questioning Connecticut's internal controls, and then look at the many stories about doctors who are saying no to ObamaCare: ``Report: Connecticut is Less Competitive After Federal Health Care Reform'' in the Hartford Courant.

It just reminds me there are so many side effects of this health care law all across the country--stories from every State. Premiums are going up, people are having to pay more in copays, people are having to pay more in terms of their deductibles, and people continue to be offended that they were not told the truth.

The rates continue to go up. The President said they would go down. Nancy Pelosi said they would go down for everyone. That is not the case. And I think what I am hearing also is----

People believe that Washington is in control.

The Senator will yield for a question.

Yes.

Madam President, I didn't hear a question posed in that, but I concur. And I mentioned in my remarks, as the Senator from Connecticut has said, that the rates were not allowed to go up to the double-digit request, although I also mentioned they are going up by double-digits in many other States. Yet the President of the United States said the rates would go down by $2,500 per family per year. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi--who was Speaker when the Member from Connecticut was a Member of the House and voted for the health care law--said on ``Meet the Press'' that they would go down for everyone, and that is not the case. The case is, as I have continued to say on the floor of this body, rates are going up across the country even though the President promised something else. What people are seeing is higher premium rates, higher deductibles, higher copays, and loss of doctors. They feel Washington is taking control over their lives. We are also seeing lower paychecks in Connecticut as people try to comply with the 30-hour workweek requirements, which are causing school districts to have to choose whether to hire reading teachers as a result of the mandates of the health care law.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, at the 102nd Wyoming State Fair, I, along with Senator Enzi, will have the honor of introducing Frank Moore as he is inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame for 2014. Frank has spent his lifetime working for positive changes in agriculture, and he has undoubtedly earned this honor through his impact both in Wyoming and nationwide.

Frank Moore's ancestors came to the Wyoming Territory in 1876 and started a ranching legacy. A century later in 1978, Frank and his wife Elaine began raising their own cattle and sheep at the Spearhead Ranch north of Douglas, WY. They also started a successful outfitting business which further diversified their ranching operation.

Frank has been iconic in his efforts to promote and build the sheep industry. He is currently serving as chairman of the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative, an organization he helped establish in 2001. The founders of the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative knew that strategic vertical integration of the sheep industry was the only way to save it, and they led the charge in making it happen. Brad Boner, another founder of the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative and Wyoming rancher, observed: ``Without Frank's outstanding leadership and strong passion for Wyoming's sheep industry, I am not sure we would have been successful in our efforts to form the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative.''

For almost three decades Frank has dedicated a great deal of time and energy by volunteering and serving on boards and committees at both the State and national levels. In addition to serving on the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative board since its inception, Frank has been the president of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, served on the board of directors of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Board, and he served in the Wyoming House of Representatives from 1993 to 1996. He personally worked to establish the Scrapie Eradication Program, National Wool Act, Guard Dog Program, and many other initiatives that have influenced the sheep industry nationally.

Peter Orwick of the American Sheep Industry has said the industry is in a better place because of Frank's leadership and willingness to make hard decisions. The undying passion and determination of citizens like Frank and his wife Elaine keep the agriculture industry in both Wyoming and America thriving.

My wife Bobbi joins me in extending our congratulations to Frank and thanking him for his dedication to the Wyoming way of life. I will be honored to share this special day with Frank and his family as he is inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a column written by Mr. Dennis Sun, Publisher of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup, entitled ``Muddying the Waters.'' The article was published on June 21 of this year.

Through this recently proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definition of ``waters of the United States'' to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a

short duration after rainfall. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States. But this proposed rule does, and it will have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers and small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living.

Dennis knows what the true impact of this rule will be to rural communities. He is a fourth-generation rancher from Central, WY. Mr. Sun stated in his column that ``according to the EPA, the proposed definition of waters of the U.S. would increase predictability and consistency for CWA programs, and as a lot of folks see it--that's right--we know we would go out of business instead of just maybe.'''

Dennis goes on to say that ``our government has run amuck, and we shouldn't like it. . .'' He is right. This proposed rule by the administration is circumventing Congress by effectively writing navigable out of the Clean Water Act, thus allowing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to seize all wet areas of the States. Just as troubling as ignoring congressional intent, the proposed rule disregards the fundamental tenet embodied in two landmark cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that there are limits to Federal jurisdiction.

This unprecedented exercise of power will allow Environmental Protection Agency to trump States' rights and wipe out the authority of State and local governments to make local land and water use decisions. This is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities.

The uncertainty this rule creates only delays economic investment and job creation. It defies logic to think this proposed rule will benefit anybody but bureaucrats in Washington who are far removed from the communities between the coasts.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to stand with ranchers like Dennis Sun. Stand with those who understand the land best and not with extremists outside and within this administration who do not know how to run a farm, a ranch, or a small business.