Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Diego Zepeda for his hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Diego is from Gillette, WY and a graduate of Campbell County High School. He currently attends Northern Wyoming Community College where he is studying business management. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts during his time in my office.

I want to thank Diego for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to respond to some of the comments by the Senator from Connecticut and specifically with regard to the health care law. I come with an interest because I did part of my medical training in that State, still have many friends who practice medicine in Connecticut, and feel from the comments I hear from them that they see a very different side of the picture than what we hear from the Senator from Connecticut.

For some time now Republicans have been talking about the terrible side effects of the President's health care law. The Senator from Connecticut made some references to a family who certainly may have been helped by the health care law, but there are clearly people in that State who are being harmed by the health care law.

In the past I have spoken on this floor about a story in the Washington Post about how the health care law is hurting families all across Connecticut. The article said that two insurance carriers in the Senator's home State of Connecticut have proposed increasing their health insurance premiums by an average of about 12 percent. I didn't hear the Senator from Connecticut make reference to that today. So some people will have smaller increases than the average, but many people in Connecticut are going to pay much more. That is an expensive side effect families are going to have to deal with because of the President's health care law for which the Democrats in the Senate have voted.

There was another article a week or so ago in The Hill newspaper with the headline ``Personal data on ObamaCare enrollees may be compromised.'' It says:

Connecticut's health insurance exchange acknowledged Friday

that the personal information of some enrollees may have been

compromised.

Someone found a backpack on a street in Hartford, CT, containing personal information of about 400 people, and it looks as if some of the information is connected to the exchange.

It is interesting. There was a story in the Danbury, CT, newspaper. The headline is ``Affordable Care Act could cost schools big bucks.'' So it is not just health care; the Affordable Care Act itself could cost the schools big bucks. I haven't heard the Senator from Connecticut make reference to that. This could cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars they didn't expect to pay.

The Senator from New York is here, and I don't know if the Senator has time locked in. If not, I wanted to speak for a few more moments because this continues to be a major impact.

The law includes a special tax on what are called the Cadillac plans. These are generous health insurance plans that some people--such as union workers, police, and school employees--get in some places.

Another big thing is the way the law defines full-time workers, and this is a problem we are seeing in a lot of places. Employees are considered full time under the health care law if they work 30 hours a week. So schools--schools that are being impacted--are having to provide insurance for those people or cut back their hours.

It is hurting a lot of folks in the Senator's home State and specifically in the school districts in Connecticut.

What they are finding is that they are having to pay more money to buy insurance for the people whom they can't cut back. So the school superintendent in Danbury, CT, wrote to the congressional delegation from Connecticut asking for help. According to a newspaper story from Danbury, he wrote:

Unless there is some reasonable modification to the ACA

[the President's health care law] there will be a tremendous

drain on our limited resources.

So when I see the Senator from Connecticut with a sign that says the health care law works, I would say: Not for many people, and it is harming people, including students in our schools. The law is a drain on resources of schools, towns, and counties across the country--a very costly side effect of the health care law at the local level.

I hear the same from my constituents in Wyoming who are seeing similar decisions having to be made, tough choices. I know the Senator from Connecticut is hearing it from his constituents, such as the superintendent of schools in Danbury.

Middle-class families are getting smaller paychecks because of the law. School districts are getting stretched thin by the health care law. Families are having to pay higher premiums because of the health care law, and on top of that they are being exposed to potential fraud and identity theft in the exchanges created by the health care law, as evidenced by a backpack found on a street in Hartford, CT, containing names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, and birth dates of people who signed up for the exchange.

Republicans are going to keep talking about these devastating, dangerous side effects of the Democrats' health care law. We are going to keep pushing for real health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last week I heard the majority leader speak about people who are happy with the President's health care law. While I agree that some people have been helped by the law, many Americans have been hurt by the law's destructive side effects. Republicans have given examples of people from all across the

country of all ages and in all kinds of situations being harmed by the health care law, and we found that a disproportionate number of those being hurt are women. These are middle-class Americans who work hard, do the right thing, and they just want to care for themselves and their families.

The health care law that the President wrote--and every Senate Democrat in the Senate voted for--is standing between them and the lives they want to live. That is what I am hearing from my neighbors back home in Wyoming, and I think I hear from more individuals than many of the Senators do because I was a physician and practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years. I have taken care of patients and families.

I would like to share with everyone what I have been hearing from the women around the State of Wyoming and how this law has been impacting their lives.

I got a letter from a woman in Gillette, WY, and she said: ``I wanted to share with you my frustration and worry concerning the Affordable Care Act.''

She said she and her husband have three daughters--ages 12, 9, and 3--and her husband started a new business. She said: ``Thanks to the new health care law our insurance premium increased $560 per month.'' That is $6,700 more a year that this family has to pay for insurance under the President's health care law.

She wrote:

As we struggle to plan for our girls' futures, attempt to

make my husband's business prosper, and dream of what our

future may hold once our children are raised, it is

disheartening that we will now pay nearly $17,000 a year for

health insurance.

She said:

There are so many things we could, and should, be able to

do with that money. That additional $560 per month could be

put in our girls' college funds, be given back to our church

and community. Sadly, we don't have the luxury of deciding

how to use that hard-earned money.

We have been told by Washington that we will spend our

money on health insurance. I have never felt so completely

let down by the American government.

Here is a woman who just wants to raise her family, send her daughters to college, maybe grow the family business, and there she is in Wyoming struggling with the burden Washington Democrats imposed on her with this terrible health care law and its damaging and disheartening side effects.

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

Are Democrats in the Senate who voted for this health care law proud of what they are doing to this woman and her family? Are Democrats willing to come to the floor and forcefully defend and be proud that this Wyoming family has to spend thousands of dollars on health insurance instead of on their daughters' college funds?

Millions of women all across America are in the same situation as this woman in Gillette, WY. There has been a new study that looked at how much more money people are paying this year for insurance in the ObamaCare exchanges than they paid last year before the Obama health care law kicked in. They found that a lot of women are paying much more because of the President's health care law.

In North Carolina--and we just heard from the Senator from North Carolina--an average 27-year-old woman is paying $1,100 more for health insurance coverage than she did last year. In North Carolina a 64-year- old woman is paying $5,000 more because of all of the requirements of the health care law. Is that Senator willing to come back and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law and what it has done to these women in her home State?

It is the same in Arkansas. An average 40-year-old woman pays $1,300 more this year because of the law. A 64-year-old woman in Arkansas is paying $3,400 more this year in the exchanges. In one State after another, women are paying more. Women of all ages are getting hurt. The Washington Post had a very interesting story about this on June 24.

It said: ``Older women bear the brunt of higher health insurance costs under Obamacare.'' That is the headline from the Washington Post--``Older women bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare.''

The article says a new report found ``women age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange.''

The article says, ``These women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care Act.''

Under President Obama and the Democrats' plan, older women are bearing the brunt of higher health insurance costs. This is a disgraceful side effect of the Democrats' health care law. Women across the country are paying more money for insurance they do not need, do not want, and will likely never use.

Are Democrats willing to come to the floor of the Senate and forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that older women are bearing the brunt of higher health insurance costs under this law?

I got another letter from a rancher from Newcastle, WY. She and her husband were paying $650 a month for insurance. She said, ``We don't carry maternity insurance because we have completed our family.'' This woman has had a hysterectomy.

I get letters more than maybe most because I am a physician who practiced in Wyoming for a long time.

She says their insurance agent told them they couldn't renew their policy at the end of last year. The reason? Because it didn't meet the President's requirement that they have to have maternity coverage, so they had to choose a new policy from the exchange.

Now, remember, she doesn't need or want maternity coverage and she is never going to use it because she has had a hysterectomy. According to President Obama and the Democrats, it doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter.

They were paying $650 a month before ObamaCare. She said her insurance agent quoted her rates for a comparable policy of anywhere between $1,300 and $1,600 a month or they could take a bronze policy with much less coverage than they had before for $900--still more than they were paying before. So $3,000 a year more than they paid before ObamaCare, and the out-of-pocket costs would be much higher and much more difficult for the family.

This woman from Wyoming writes:

We're being forced out of a good policy, which we pay for

with hard-earned money, which we choose, into a dangerous

financial health care situation, with less coverage, and

which puts my husband and I, who are proud of our own

sustainability, on to what we consider the welfare rolls by

needing a government subsidy to afford a plan that we don't

want or need.

We don't want, we don't need, and we are forced on to it.

She writes:

To say that we're angry is an understatement. Why is this

happening? Why can Obama force me into this? We feel

helpless.

This isn't what the President of the United States promised the American people. It is not what every Democrat who voted for the health care law promised the American people.

It seems to me that President Obama and Democrats in the Senate just don't get it. All these women wanted was a chance to buy insurance coverage that worked for them. They wanted the right to be left alone to make their own choices about their family's health care, not to have Washington make choices for them. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost.

President Obama wasn't interested in listening to what women wanted. He wanted to tell--he wanted to mandate--he wanted to tell them and mandate what he thought was best for them. It is outrageous.

I hear from people almost every day who are feeling the costly and cruel side effects of the health care law.

I heard from a woman in Casper, WY, where I practiced and was chief of staff of the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper. She gets her insurance through her job. The costs have gone up so much under ObamaCare that she is worried about what might happen. She writes:

I am concerned for what I might be facing when my employer

has to comply with the [health care law] next year. I have

not had children yet because of the effects the recession had

on me and my husband. I would very much like to think we

could have one in the next couple of years, however, the

insurance fiasco worries me.

So this woman is worried that the health care law might actually affect her and her husband having a family.

Why did President Obama take away the rights of women to choose what

health coverage is right for them and their families? This was an active decision made by Democrats in this body and the President of the United States to take away the rights of women to choose what health coverage is right for them and their families.

Why did President Obama raise the cost of health care and make it more expensive for women?

These are just a few of the women who are being hurt by ObamaCare and just a few of the ways the President's health care law is affecting women all across America.

Again, there are some people who have been helped by the law. Some people are happy with their insurance. Nobody is denying that. There are also people who have been hurt by the law and who can't afford it and who are devastated because of it. What does the President have to say to those people? Why won't President Obama sit down with just one of these women who has written to me and actually listen to the damage he has done to them, to their families, and to their health care as a result of his health care law?

Why won't Democrats come to the floor of the Senate and talk about these millions of Americans--millions of women--whom they have harmed with the health care law?

Republicans have offered ideas for health care reform that allow women to make choices on what is best for them and their families. If they want maternity coverage, they can find a policy that offers it. They wouldn't be forced to pay for what they don't need or don't want just because someone in Washington tells them they must. People wanted health care reform to give them access to quality, affordable care--not more expensive coverage.

Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor. We are going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these expensive and offensive side effects.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Norman Bay. President Obama has nominated Mr. Bay to be a commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. The President has announced that if Mr. Bay is confirmed, his plan is to elevate Mr. Bay to the position of chairman of FERC. Over the past few months there has been much discussion about whether the President should have nominated Mr. Bay to be chairman, and I think there is very good reason to ask whether the President really should have nominated Mr. Bay at all.

In my view Mr. Bay is not qualified to be a commissioner, let alone to be chairman of FERC. Mr. Bay has only 5 years of working experience in the energy sector--a total of 5 years. This is less time than the Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending with the Obama administration.

During the nomination hearing, I specifically asked Mr. Bay about his lack of experience. In response, he cited his summer internship at a Department of Energy research facility during college--a summer internship during college. With all due respect, this man does not have the background, the qualifications, and certainly not the experience to take on this important role.

The President has nominated Mr. Bay to replace FERC's current chairman Cheryl LaFleur. In contrast to Mr. Bay, whom the President has nominated to replace Ms. LaFleur, Ms. LaFleur has over 25 years of experience in the energy sector. That includes 4 years as a commissioner of FERC and 7 months as the chairman of FERC. I don't often agree with Ms. LaFleur's policies, but you cannot deny that she is qualified to serve.

Mr. Bay's lack of experience is not the only reason I oppose his nomination. There are a number of outstanding factual disputes about Mr. Bay's tenure as the FERC's enforcement director. For example, there are serious allegations that the enforcement staff, during the time Mr. Bay has been in charge, has violated basic principles of due process. These allegations include the withholding of exculpatory evidence from subjects of FERC investigations.

In May the Energy Law Journal published an article by William Scherman, who was a former general counsel of FERC and by two other attorneys familiar with this situation, and they write: ``There is a wide-spread view that the FERC enforcement process has become lop-sided and unfair.''

They said that:

One need only to observe the fact that Enforcement Staff

denies, in case after case, the existence of exculpatory or

exonerating materials . . . only to . . . produce a subset of

those materials too late in the process to be of use . . . in

raising defenses.

The authors explain that ``one of the fundamental principles of due process is that the government is not permitted to hide information from the accused that may aid in his or her defense.'' They say that ``[FERC] Enforcement Staff routinely fails to produce exculpatory documents''--routinely fails to produce exculpatory documents.

During Mr. Bay's nominating hearing, I asked him about these allegations. At first he denied the allegations were true, but then he stated he was ``not aware of any instance in which Enforcement Staff has failed to produce exculpatory materials.''

So I asked him to clarify his remarks. I asked him whether the allegations were true or not. He pled ignorance.

With all due respect, this answer is inexcusable. This is his staff doing his work under his direction. He should know whether they withheld the evidence from defendants.

There are not only questions about his commitment to due process, but there are also questions about the President's nominee on whether he or anyone else at FERC suggested that an enforcement action be settled in return for approval of a merger. So there are questions about whether an enforcement action should be settled in return for approving a merger.

The ranking member of the energy committee asked all about this during the nomination hearing. The ranking member of the committee asked Mr. Bay about the connection between FERC's enforcement settlement with Constellation Energy and FERC's approval of Constellation's merger with Exelon.

The ranking member noted that FERC settled with Constellation the day before--1 day before it approved a merger between Constellation and Exelon. In fact, the enforcement settlement, which Mr. Bay himself signed, specifically mentions the merger between these two. The ranking member of the Energy Committee asked Mr. Bay whether he is concerned about the appearance of a quid pro quo between the settlement agreement one day and the merger approval the next. Mr. Bay admitted he would be concerned.

The ranking member then asked if he or others suggested to FERC that Constellation should settle the enforcement action in order to get its merger approved. In response he said that ``[t]o the best of [his] recollection'' he didn't make such a suggestion and that he did not know what others at FERC--including his own staff--may have suggested.

With all due respect to Mr. Bay, his answer is, at best, hard to believe.

At the time FERC's enforcement settlement with Constellation was the largest enforcement settlement completed in the history of the agency. So they make this settlement, it is the largest enforcement settlement in the agency's history, and the next day they allow a merger which has created one of the Nation's largest utilities. Are we really to believe that Mr. Bay doesn't remember what he or others at FERC said to Constellation? Can we really believe that?

I believe the energy committee or some other independent entity should get answers to these and other questions surrounding Mr. Bay's record before we decide--this Senate--to confirm and promote him.

I know that some Senate Democrats are nervous about voting for Mr. Bay--and I believe rightfully so. These Senate Democrats have said they will vote for Mr. Bay only because they believe a so-called deal was cut with President Obama. Specifically, they say the President will allow Ms. LaFleur to continue serving as chairman for 9 months after her confirmation.

The President hasn't put it in writing, hasn't really told all of the Members that. And even if the President had, this is no way for the Senate to be able to enforce it. The truth is this is

a gimmick, and it is a gimmick invented specifically by Senate Democrats so they can once again avoid standing up to President Obama and the Senate majority leader.

Let's be clear about what President Obama is asking the Senate to do. The President is asking the Senate to demote Cheryl LaFleur from being chairman--she is a highly qualified woman, a Democrat with over 25 years of experience in energy and 4 years of experience as a commissioner of FERC--in order to promote an unqualified man.

Why should the Senate do this?

The Senate majority leader put it this way in the Wall Street Journal. He said: I don't want her. ``I don't want her as chair.'' He said: ``She has done some stuff to do away with some of [Chairman] Wellinghoff's stuff.'' This is the majority leader of the Senate: ``I don't want her as chair.''

In short the President and the Senate majority leader want a rubber stamp. By all indications, they will get that with Mr. Bay.

On May 20, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Bay admitted that he wasn't even following EPA regulations and their impact on electric reliability in this country. Two weeks later on June 4, in response to written questions, he stated the EPA's regulations are ``manageable.'' Well, either he is an exceptionally quick study or he doesn't take electric reliability seriously.

FERC is an independent agency. It needs a highly qualified leader, a leader whose record is beyond reproach, a leader who will resist political interference from the White House and the majority leader, and Mr. Bay is not that individual.

For these reasons, I am voting against Mr. Bay and urge all Members to do the same.

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

My friend and colleague from Arizona is absolutely right. The three of us have traveled together to Ukraine. We have traveled together to Latvia and Lithuania.

What we hear everywhere we go is: Please sell us natural gas. Please sell us energy. Please help us undermine what Putin is doing to us.

Energy should be used as a geopolitical weapon, and it is the advances in technology in just the last decade that have made all of this possible. The Senators from Arizona and North Dakota are both correct. We are producing more now than ever. They are well aware of that throughout Europe and throughout the Baltics--to the point that Lithuania is even in the middle of acquiring an at-sea platform to change liquefied natural gas into natural gas--to warm it up, if you will, for use--and it is called the Independence. That is the name of this platform. It is to give them independence from Russia.

That is what they are investing in, and now they are saying to us: Please send it our way.

The technology has changed so much that in 2005 a book came out called ``Beyond Oil,'' and it was sent to every University of Wyoming first-year student coming in. They were invited to read it, and there was a whole section on liquefied natural gas.

At the time the technology wasn't developed enough for us to be so blessed in the United States to produce it, so that they were talking about actually building terminals in Louisiana, Texas, to import liquefied natural gas from other places.

Now we have reversed it. We are now in a position where we have such an abundance of liquefied natural gas, as my colleague from North Dakota said, we are flaring it off, burning it to the point of $1.5 million a day. That is the value of that gas, and there is also tax revenue that is not being collected because this isn't being sold, so our States could use the revenue. The Federal Government would benefit from us selling this rather than burning it, but yet we don't have the opportunity to do so because of the specifics of the laws with which we are faced.

We need to change the law. We need to be able to export. We need to be able to have permits to export, and we are seeing a lot of foot- dragging by this administration, which is why there are bills on this floor, bipartisan pieces of legislation, to help us use our energy abundance as a geopolitical weapon to

undermine Vladimir Putin's ability to use energy as a weapon of his own, a club against, as we have said, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--all of these areas that are so dependent upon Russia for their gas, when they would rather buy it from us.

It would be an opportunity for us in America to become a net exporter in a way that would help balance our trade and balance our payments. It would bring cash back into the United States and we would be so much less dependent on the Middle East for sources of energy. We should be relying on that at home.

I look to my colleague from Arizona and say he is absolutely right in his leadership, in his direction, and in his global view that he has seen in his incredible service to our country. He has seen the shift. He has seen the future, and he knows the future success for our country comes in exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe, to our NATO allies, to Ukraine.

That is why we bring to the floor today the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, which we believe will help our country, help globally, and help us not just economically but help us geopolitically as well.

I turn to my friends from either Arizona or North Dakota to continue in this discussion, and then I will get back to some specific things that are happening around the world.

It is interesting. The Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Arizona, and I were reviewing this article in today's Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 10.

The headline is ``In the Arctic, Shipping Route Is Set to Supply LNG to Asia,'' and there is a map of the globe. It says:

Shipping companies in China and Japan said they would start

a regular service to carry Siberian natural gas across the

Arctic Ocean to East Asia, showing how Asian demand for the

fuel is reshaping global shipping routes.

So with the forces at play--Asia's demand for natural gas, Japan's move

away from nuclear power, China's struggle with pollution--this is an opportunity for us to use a resource we have in the United States and export it in a very profitable way for our country, put people to work, increase tax revenues to the States, increase tax revenues to the Nation, and improve our balance of trade. The technology is now allowing us to do it, but the government is not. That is the biggest problem we have--a bureaucratic Federal Government that is not allowing what we have and what we have learned to use. The government is blocking it, and that is why we have come to the floor today to try to encourage additional exports to Europe and support the North Atlantic Energy Security Act.

The legislation is bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats alike who realize there are incredible values to us as a nation to be exporting liquefied natural gas.

At a time when the technology is there, the will is there, we need to get a vote on the Senate floor. I offered the amendment before and bring it again today as legislation, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. It is about energy, it is about security--our economic security, our energy security--and our opportunities on the geopolitical stage to use our resources to the best advantage of our Nation and our Nation's citizens.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his continued leadership in this area.

My friend and colleague from Arizona is absolutely right. The three of us have traveled together to Ukraine. We have traveled together to Latvia and Lithuania.

What we hear everywhere we go is: Please sell us natural gas. Please sell us energy. Please help us undermine what Putin is doing to us.

Energy should be used as a geopolitical weapon, and it is the advances in technology in just the last decade that have made all of this possible. The Senators from Arizona and North Dakota are both correct. We are producing more now than ever. They are well aware of that throughout Europe and throughout the Baltics--to the point that Lithuania is even in the middle of acquiring an at-sea platform to change liquefied natural gas into natural gas--to warm it up, if you will, for use--and it is called the Independence. That is the name of this platform. It is to give them independence from Russia.

That is what they are investing in, and now they are saying to us: Please send it our way.

The technology has changed so much that in 2005 a book came out called ``Beyond Oil,'' and it was sent to every University of Wyoming first-year student coming in. They were invited to read it, and there was a whole section on liquefied natural gas.

At the time the technology wasn't developed enough for us to be so blessed in the United States to produce it, so that they were talking about actually building terminals in Louisiana, Texas, to import liquefied natural gas from other places.

Now we have reversed it. We are now in a position where we have such an abundance of liquefied natural gas, as my colleague from North Dakota said, we are flaring it off, burning it to the point of $1.5 million a day. That is the value of that gas, and there is also tax revenue that is not being collected because this isn't being sold, so our States could use the revenue. The Federal Government would benefit from us selling this rather than burning it, but yet we don't have the opportunity to do so because of the specifics of the laws with which we are faced.

We need to change the law. We need to be able to export. We need to be able to have permits to export, and we are seeing a lot of foot- dragging by this administration, which is why there are bills on this floor, bipartisan pieces of legislation, to help us use our energy abundance as a geopolitical weapon to

undermine Vladimir Putin's ability to use energy as a weapon of his own, a club against, as we have said, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--all of these areas that are so dependent upon Russia for their gas, when they would rather buy it from us.

It would be an opportunity for us in America to become a net exporter in a way that would help balance our trade and balance our payments. It would bring cash back into the United States and we would be so much less dependent on the Middle East for sources of energy. We should be relying on that at home.

I look to my colleague from Arizona and say he is absolutely right in his leadership, in his direction, and in his global view that he has seen in his incredible service to our country. He has seen the shift. He has seen the future, and he knows the future success for our country comes in exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe, to our NATO allies, to Ukraine.

That is why we bring to the floor today the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, which we believe will help our country, help globally, and help us not just economically but help us geopolitically as well.

I turn to my friends from either Arizona or North Dakota to continue in this discussion, and then I will get back to some specific things that are happening around the world.

It is interesting. The Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Arizona, and I were reviewing this article in today's Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 10.

The headline is ``In the Arctic, Shipping Route Is Set to Supply LNG to Asia,'' and there is a map of the globe. It says:

Shipping companies in China and Japan said they would start

a regular service to carry Siberian natural gas across the

Arctic Ocean to East Asia, showing how Asian demand for the

fuel is reshaping global shipping routes.

So with the forces at play--Asia's demand for natural gas, Japan's move

away from nuclear power, China's struggle with pollution--this is an opportunity for us to use a resource we have in the United States and export it in a very profitable way for our country, put people to work, increase tax revenues to the States, increase tax revenues to the Nation, and improve our balance of trade. The technology is now allowing us to do it, but the government is not. That is the biggest problem we have--a bureaucratic Federal Government that is not allowing what we have and what we have learned to use. The government is blocking it, and that is why we have come to the floor today to try to encourage additional exports to Europe and support the North Atlantic Energy Security Act.

The legislation is bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats alike who realize there are incredible values to us as a nation to be exporting liquefied natural gas.

At a time when the technology is there, the will is there, we need to get a vote on the Senate floor. I offered the amendment before and bring it again today as legislation, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. It is about energy, it is about security--our economic security, our energy security--and our opportunities on the geopolitical stage to use our resources to the best advantage of our Nation and our Nation's citizens.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his continued leadership in this area.

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

Mr. President, today I rise in support of Barrasso amendment No. 3453 to the underlying bill. This amendment actually has 36 cosponsors--36 of my fellow colleagues have cosponsored legislation called the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act of 2014, and this legislation is identical to the amendment we have on the floor today.

The amendment restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this administration's EPA to encompass all the wet areas on farms, ranches, and suburban homes all across America. More specifically, the amendment eliminates the administration's proposed rule--a rule to implement this

expansion of Federal authority, an expansion which I don't think the Federal Government should have or does have. But we do have a recently proposed rule, and through this proposed rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definition of waters of the United States. They want to expand the definition--it is a specific term, waters of the United States--to now include ditches and other dry areas where water does flow, but only flows during a short duration, basically after a rainfall. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States. So this is an expansion of the way we view waters of the United States.

This proposed rule does and will have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses needing to put a shovel into the ground to make a living. The rule, in a sense, amounts to a user's fee for farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. It forces suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to use their backyards after a storm.

To me this is one of the worst things we could ever do to Americans, let alone during this poor economy. That is why the Protecting Water and Private Property Rights Act is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business and by the American Land Rights Association. They have endorsed this amendment because they know how devastating the rule is to farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and even to homeowners.

This administration claims it is providing flexibility for farmers and ranchers in the proposed rule, but farmers and ranchers across the country who read this are not deceived.

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, released a statement on June 11 of this year stating that ``the rule would micro- manage farming via newly-mandated procedures for fencing, spraying, weeding and more. Permitting meanwhile, could delay time-sensitive tasks for months, potentially ruining crops in the process.''

According to the June edition of the publication National Cattleman in an article entitled ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS,'' waters of the United States, the article states: ``Although agriculture exemptions are briefly included, they don't come close to meeting the needs of cattlemen and women across the country.''

The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bob McCan, stated in an article:

For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have

standing water, under this rule, could potentially be

affected. We'd now need permission to travel and move cattle

across these types of areas.

The article lists some of the major areas of agriculture which are not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule. The article states:

Activities not covered by the exemptions include

introduction of new cultivation techniques, planting

different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture

to crops, changing cropland to orchard/vineyard and changing

cropland to nurseries.

Those activities are not included.

The rule also provides no flexibility for investments by small businesses across the country.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business:

Unfortunately, despite claims by the Agencies, the proposed

rule will only increase uncertainty.

The proposed rule still requires the Agencies to determine

on a case-by-case basis whether many common land formations

fall under federal jurisdiction.

Often, this determination does not occur until after

substantial investments and planning by a small business have

taken place--thus chilling investment and expansion. Small

businesses cannot be speculative with their resources and

capital.

Private property owners would also face no flexibility. My own constituent, Mr. Andy Johnson, Uinta County, WY, has been threatened by the EPA with penalties calculated to reach an estimated $187,000 a day for building what he believes is a stock pond on his property. In a month's time, he could be liable for more than $5 million in penalties.

What are homeowners to do when faced with this kind of threat? They could choose to fight city hall with limited resources or give in to strong-arming by the Federal Government. Given the Agency's plans to expand the jurisdictional limits of the Clean Water Act, the EPA could easily use the proposed rule to bankrupt small landowners for something as simple as building a pond or a ditch anywhere near a wetland or stream.

Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act to be used this way. To me 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.

I think it is time for the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to keep out of the lives of our constituents' backyards, and it is time to do it by opposing the proposed rule.

I wish to end with a broader point about how the Senate operates these days.

Today the Washington Post had an editorial specifically about the legislation, and it is entitled ``Clear rules for clean water,'' which is the proposal I have here today. The editorial board of the Washington Post writes: ``If lawmakers don't like the call the EPA is making''--and I don't like the call the EPA is making--``they should clarify the terminology themselves.''

In an ideal world, I agree with them. If we don't like something, we should be able to propose a better idea and then we should be allowed to vote on it in the Senate. The reality is the majority leader, Senator Reid, has essentially shut down the Senate and refuses to allow us to vote on new ideas that would actually solve challenges such as this one.

In fact, Republicans and Democrats have proposed hundreds and hundreds of amendments, and we have only been able to vote on a very small number of those--and very select ones at that. The truth is the majority leader, Harry Reid, refuses to allow any votes on almost any amendment and is enforcing a gag order on real debate, discussion and, most importantly, on votes. He has imposed a gag order on important issues that impact the lives of all Americans.

To prove my point, I put together a chart. I wish to take a moment to review the voting record over the past full year in this body. This calendar has the headline ``Reid Blocks Votes.'' The Republican votes are in red. We have the last full year of calendar months, and July is down here as the 13th month because we started last year on July 1.

The red Xs are days when there were votes on Republican amendments, and votes on Democratic amendments are in blue. Over the past 12 months--from July of 2013 to July of 2014--Majority Leader Reid has allowed Republicans to vote on their amendments a total of 8 days--8 days out of the entire 12 months there have been votes on Republican amendments. There have been a total of 11 amendments which Republicans have had a chance to offer and have votes on even though we have introduced hundreds of amendments.

It is interesting. Harry Reid has actually been tougher on his own party. The Democrats have been more restricted and more limited. If you look at this calendar, you will see the days in blue. Harry Reid has only allowed Democrats to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 days over this past year that Democrats have had votes on their own amendments on the floor of the Senate. Over that time Democrats have proposed hundreds and hundreds--over 500--of amendments, and there have only been 7 Democratic amendments over the course of 5 days that have had a vote. Democrats have not had a vote on an amendment proposed by a Democratic Senator since March 27. It has been 103 days and counting since the Democrats have had an amendment that one of them has proposed and offered here in the Senate for a vote.

It is so interesting because as I look at the Presiding Officer--of the Democrats newly elected to the Senate in 2012, Members of the Presiding Officer's entire class have not had a single rollcall vote on one of their own amendments on the floor of the Senate--ever. It is an astonishing display of what the majority leader has done to muzzle an entire legislative body of both parties.

I will tell the Presiding Officer I think it is an embarrassing record. It is

an embarrassing record for the majority leader, and I think it is an embarrassing record for the Democrats--who control the Senate--to tolerate.

I think it is important for Americans to pay close attention to not just what Senators say when they go home, but actually what happens and what they do and what they stand for and what they vote on. So I would say the next time Democrats go home and tell their constituents they are introducing legislation to solve a problem, the constituents ought to ask, when? When is the vote? That is what I want to know. When is the vote? When is the vote, Mr. President? When is the vote, Senate Democrats? When is the vote, Majority Leader Reid? When is the vote?

As usual, when the question is asked, silence. That is all we get in return.

So I actually believe we have a majority of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who would actually vote to pass my amendment. This amendment I have to this bill on the floor--a majority of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, bipartisan, would vote to pass this amendment to stop the EPA's extreme takeover of waters across America. But under Senator Reid's command-and-control style of leadership, I don't think we will ever know. I don't think we will have that vote, and I think Senator Reid will block it.

So I would say that if my colleagues agree with the editorial board of the Washington Post, ``Clear rules for clean water''--today's Washington Post editorial--then they should be able to stand and be counted. Democrats should demand it. In the recent history of the United States, if that history is any indication, as we can see by this embarrassing vote calendar, I am not at all confident that this body will ever be given the opportunity to stand and be counted, and the reason is because Majority Leader Reid won't allow Republicans or Democrats to vote on my amendment or hardly anyone else's amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

I come to the floor today because it seems day after day there is another story or two in the paper about what is happening with the President's health care law. As I go home to Wyoming each week, I go through Denver and the airport there. Today the headline in the Denver Post has to do with the Colorado health exchanges. The first line says: ``Colorado's health care exchange is expecting nearly twice as many people to drop or to decline to pay for their policies.'' You know, they predicted how many people would continue to make payments if they had signed up under the President's health care law. Today they are predicting that twice as many as they anticipated would be either dropping or failing to pay for their health care premiums.

The Wall Street Journal today, above the fold, front page, ``Newly Insured Face Coverage Gaps.'' So you get people who may have signed up under the President's health care law, coverage gaps, not paying, dropping, truly not the deal the President has said was something he felt would be helpful to Americans. More and more people are finding out they are having bigger problems under the President's health care law, problems with the promises that were made by this President, by this administration, and by those who voted for the health care law.

I get home just about every weekend in Wyoming to talk with people, to listen to them, to hear what they have to say. But also as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, one of my responsibilities is also to see how policies such as the President's health care law come out across the country, what happens in other States, how policies out of Washington affect people all across America.

Today I wish to talk a little about how the health care law is impacting people not just in my home State of Wyoming but all across the country. In addition to being in Wyoming last week, I had a chance to visit Alaska. What I heard from people there as well as people in Wyoming is that people

have been hurt by the President's health care law. They are anxious about it in terms of their own health care, and they are angry about insurance they have had that they have lost, and the implications of the President's health care law where many promises were made and now people are finding out the President's promises, in terms of their own lives, their own health and their own families, have not actually been kept.

The President, Democrats here in the Senate, promised their law was going to be great for the American people. That is the promise. Well, I can tell you the people I talk to in Wyoming, people I heard from in Alaska, are very worried about the terrible side effects they are feeling specifically as a result of this awful health care law.

Small businesses--and small businesses are a major part of the economy in rural States. Small businesses and the people who specifically work in those small businesses are the backbone of the economy for so many of our communities. So it is very troubling when I read about something in the health care law that threatens the very health of the people who work in these small businesses.

When Democrats were trying to sell their health care law, they bragged. They bragged about something called the SHOP program. That is the exchange where small businesses in a State were supposed to be able to buy insurance for their workers, to be able to shop for it, be able to get something that is affordable. That is the promise made by Democrats who voted for this health care law.

Democrats actually gave speeches on the floor about small businesses being able to find affordable insurance. This program was supposed to open last year, but just like the failed exchanges the President set up, when the exchanges opened October 1, this was not ready to go. So what the Obama administration did is they said: We will delay it for a year, because the program was not ready. So they left all of the businesses kind of in a lurch. Now they say it might be ready this fall. Well, time will tell.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal found in an article last month, June 10. They ran a headline that said, ``Some small business employees to have only one health plan choice: 18 states will offer only one plan when small-business exchanges open.''

The Democrats promised a lot more than that. Those who voted for that promised a lot more. Those who gave speeches promised a lot more. But in 18 States, there will be only one plan when they finally get it open, 18 States where workers and small businesses will not have any choice among insurance plans and no competition, and Alaska is one of them. Less choice, less competition, and of course that means higher premiums.

People all across the country are experiencing higher premiums. That is the thing that causes so much anger and anxiety among families all across the country. When that letter comes--and the newspaper stories are already starting to get out there, as well as television, radio, reading about it on the Internet--the question is: How much higher?

The President promised $2,500 lower premiums. Nobody believes that. Nobody in America believes the President of the United States and the promise he made. It is a sad situation when the President is not believed by anyone. But yet that is what we have. He made a promise: $2,500 per family lower. People all know that prices are going higher. The question is: How much higher?

This is what an article said in the Alaska Dispatch: ``Alaska's small businesses feel pinch of rising health care costs.'' The article tells a story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. He is paying about $5,000 a month more than he paid last year for his share of his workers' insurance. That is about a 40-percent increase over last year--40 percent. The President said it was going to go down. This is a 40-percent increase. This small business owner in Alaska says the costs are ``crippling'' and he said it is like meeting another payroll every month. This small business owner says:

It's killing me. I just don't know how long we can keep

absorbing these costs.

Those costs are a devastating side effect of the health care law. Democrats voted for it. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for that. There was a story on television up there, channel 13, a television station in Anchorage, KYUR. They aired a story last month about Linda Peters. She is another local business owner. She had 14 employees. She pays for the health insurance for her employees. Her share of the premium has gone up, gone up from $600 per person 2 years ago to $950 today. She says it has gotten so expensive that she has had to shift the cost of employees' dependents back to her workers.

So she was providing insurance for the dependents of the employees, but now she is not able to do that. Why? Because of the President's health care law. She told the TV station, ``It was really tragic, it's enraging in fact, as employers who care about our employees. `` Tragic and enraging.

But the President forced this on her and every Democrat in this body, every Democratic Senator who voted for this.

This woman in Alaska: Tragic and enraging. She is looking into dropping insurance coverage altogether. She pays her employees well so they will not get a subsidy in the State exchange. So here is a small business owner who can speak personally about the expensive, the tragic, and the enraging side effects of the Obama health care law on her employees.

Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next and how much rates might continue to go up. Of course, that makes it even worse. The business owner said:

I just can't penalize my employees by dropping the plan,

and I can't figure out: Where am I going to get the money?

It's frightening. What happens next year?

That is a big concern, what happens next year. People worry about next year. They budget for next year. They plan for next year. They think about their expenses, balancing it with their income. President Obama says: The Democrats who voted for this law--in the President's own words--should forcefully defend and be proud--should forcefully defend and be proud--of the health care law.

Are Democrats in this Senate who voted for this health care law proud? Are they proud of what the law is doing to these people in Alaska and other States? Are Democrats willing to come to this floor and forcefully defend and be proud of the extra stress, the extra costs they are causing for these people all across the country?

According to a recent study by the Manhattan Institute, people in Alaska are paying a hospital more for their coverage. They found the premiums of the average 64-year-old woman in Alaska would have been $693 a month in 2013. That is before they were forced onto the ObamaCare exchange. But in 2014, buying insurance from the exchange, her premiums jumped to $813 a month. She is paying $1,400 more this year than she did last year because of the specifics of the health care law.

For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $130 a month in 2013. But under the health care law and the exchange, he now pays $284 a month. That is more than double. That is an extra $1,800 more this year than it was last year.

Is there a Senator in this body who will come to the floor and forcefully defend the fact that there are these people all across America who are paying twice as much for insurance because of the health care law?

Democrats did not solve the problem with our health care system. They just mandated coverage, and mandated more expensive coverage. They made it more expensive and they have more mandates. People wanted reform that gave them access to quality affordable care, not more expensive coverage.

Republicans have offered solutions, solutions for patient-centered care, for patient-centered health care reform. We have talked about things such as increasing the ability of small businesses to be able to join together and negotiate better rates, about expanding health savings accounts, and allowing people to shop for and buy health insurance in other States that work best for them and for their families.

In 18 States, including Alaska, the small business exchange will offer just one choice for insurance. Shopping in other States could increase competition and help lower premiums for people who work for those small businesses.

That would have been a simple solution that works and helps people actually afford coverage and care. It is not

what Democrats did with their health care law, but it is what Republicans are offering. We have suggested ideas to get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not higher costs with a subsidy for some people, but actually lowering the cost for everyone.

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

I am sure that tomorrow there will be another headline and another one the day after that of people who have been harmed by the health care law as we see more and more and hear from more and more Americans who feel the President has not kept his promises, that the Democrats who voted for the health care law have failed the American people and have failed to answer the concerns of the American people, which was affordable quality care.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from South Dakota and agree with what he is seeing in South Dakota and I am seeing in Wyoming and that people all across the country are seeing with regard to the President's health care law. People are very concerned because it hits them in their pocketbook.

What we are seeing is that people's premiums are going up. The deductible that they have to pay before they get to use their insurance is going way up. The copay that they have to make has gone way up.

So in terms of people's actual pocketbook issues and the things that concern them, they are paying more and getting less, and it is because of the mandates in the Obama health care law.

The President of the United States says: ``Forcefully defend and be proud'' of this law. Yet day after day, I don't see Democrats who voted for the health care law coming to the floor to forcefully defend or be proud of it. And there is very little to be proud of.

We all get letters from people in our home States. I was home over the Fourth of July visiting around the State, going to many communities. I haven't run into anyone who says this has actually significantly helped make their life better. People have come up to me at parade routes, rodeos--all the different places we have been--and they have great concerns about the health care law and the impact on their own personal life, what money is left over at the end of the day to help put food on the table, to get the kids off to school, clothing for the kids, and how the impact of the health care law is making it harder and lowering the quality of life in spite of the President's promises, which they say are just not true.

I got a letter from a young woman, Shelly in Worland, WY, in Washakie County, in the center of the State. I know the community very well. She writes to me:

I know you have heard my story a hundred times, but I feel

maybe one more won't hurt.

She wanted to share what is going on in her specific life in Wyoming related to the health care law.

Yesterday in the mail I received a notice that my . . .

health insurance will go from $637 to $897, and my $10,000

deductible is now $11,000.

So her premiums have gone up and the deductible has gone up. It is a double whammy hitting her. But, she says:

My plan now meets the requirements of the health care

reform law.

And let's be serious about this. The requirements of the health care law mandate that many people all across the country end up buying much more insurance than they ever will need, ever will want, and will ever use. But it has to comply with what the Federal Government says they need.

The families of Wyoming have a better idea of what they need for their health insurance than Barack Obama has in terms of what he thinks they might need. The families of Wyoming know what they need much more so than the Democrats in this body who voted the mandates onto these people and said they have to have all of this insurance. This woman doesn't need it, doesn't want it, and is not going to use it. Yet she is paying more out of her pocket, impacting that family's life so it can comply with the health care law instead of what is best for her and her family.

She goes on to say:

My husband is self employed on the family farm, and I am

also self employed at a beauty shop. Needless to say we have

always pinched our pennies. My children are all grown, my two

daughters are both kindergarten teachers in our wonderful

state, and my son is working with us on the farm. We have

worked very hard not to use any of the government assistance

raising our children on less than $30,000 a year.

We are talking about hardworking families from all across the country pinching their pennies, making sure that they use their money wisely, not relying on the government. That is what we have here.

So now I am forced to enter the health care reform circus.

That is what this is. This is a circus forced down the throats of the American people by the Democrats in this body and by the President of the United States who forced this onto the American people, this health care reform circus.

I know I missed the deadline because I was determined to

not be a part of this, but now I simply cannot afford this

insurance. I tried to navigate the website last night and

finally gave up after being kicked off three times.

To make matters worse my insurance was offering one

decreasing deductible that we were counting on. We also lost

that in our new policy. We had our deductible down to 3,000.

We have been saving in an HA, but I'm afraid it won't last

long. I have just been told I have a rare bone disease called

fibrous dysplasia. It is causing some eye issues, and I am

facing some sort of surgery to remove the diseased bone

behind my eye.

This hardworking Wyoming family:

After working so hard to take care of ourselves my husband

and I are faced with having to have help. This makes no sense

to us. We were doing fine until the government stepped in.

There has to be an answer somewhere. Thanks for your time.

I practiced medicine for 25 years in Wyoming and took care of many families just like we have here with Shelly, knowing how hardworking people are--and the Presiding Officer knows that as well--in rural communities, people who roll up their sleeves, go to work every day, and don't want assistance from the government. They just do their job. And this is a family that has been hurt by the President's health care law--hurt dramatically. They had gotten their deductible down to $3,000, and now it is up to $11,000. Their premiums are higher than they were before, and she has a lot more insurance than she is ever going to want, need, can afford or will ever use.

But we are seeing this all around the country. It is not just in stories from

Wyoming. CBS Money Watch in the middle of June came out with a report called ``For some, Obamacare delivers sticker shock.''

It is interesting, just trying to follow the press from around the country. These aren't isolated cases. We are seeing this all across the country.

The article goes on:

. . . Obamacare is delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock.

What did the President of the United States promise the American people? He promised the American people that under his plan insurance premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first term--not stay flat, not go up a little--would actually go lower $2,500 per family per year by the end of his first term. ``Obamacare is delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock.''

Now, who is getting hurt by this? All Americans are getting hurt, but the Washington Post had an interesting story on June 24. I wish the President would pay attention to this. The President of the United States needs to know that it is ``Older women who bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare''--the headline in the Washington Post June 24.

The new government report is out:

. . . women age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when

they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal

exchange. These women bear the brunt of the increased

premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care

Act.

Winners and losers--and President Obama has chosen older women to bear the brunt of higher increased insurance costs under the President health care law.

We are going to hear that again and again as Democrats stand up to talk about the issues facing our country. It is older women who are bearing the brunt of the higher insurance costs under the President's health care law, as reported in the Washington Post.

Then, how incompetent is the Web site? Let's take a look at what the New York Times said July 1: ``Eligibility for Health Insurance Was Not Properly Checked, Audit Finds.''

An independent audit of insurance exchanges established

under the health care law has found that federal and state

officials did not properly check the eligibility of people

seeking coverage and applying for subsidies, the latest

indication of unresolved problems at HealthCare.gov.

I remember listening to President Obama talk and be interviewed by President Clinton in September of last year in New York City at the Clinton Global Initiative, or something like that. President Obama said: Easier than shopping on Amazon. Cheaper than your cell phone bill.

This is in a report to Congress on Tuesday:

In a report to Congress on Tuesday, the inspector general

for the Department of Health and Human Services . . . said

that the exchanges . . . did not have adequate safeguards

``to prevent the use of inaccurate or fraudulent information

when determining eligibility.''

Moreover, in a companion report, the inspector general said

that the government had been unable to verify much of the

information reported by people applying for insurance

coverage and financial assistance to help pay premiums.

We are talking about the Inspector General of the

Department of Health and Human Services of the Obama

administration.

``As of the first quarter of 2014,'' [the Inspector

General] said, ``the federal marketplace was unable to

resolve about 2.6 million of 2.9 million inconsistencies''--

--because the Web site that President Obama has said would be easier to use than Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone was not fully operational. What kind of government incompetence are we talking about?

The Associated Press on July 1: ``Health law sign-ups dogged by data flaws.'' Unable to resolve 2.6 million so-called inconsistencies--it is astonishing. And they call it ``another health care headache for the White House.'' The problems continue out of sight. The President is trying to hide these problems--trying to hide them from the American people. The President says one thing, tries to sell a story. The President now has his own war room set up--not to solve the problems. Oh, no. He is not trying to solve the problems. He has a war room to try to spin the information so the voters don't get to see what they are not being deceived by. They can see through this. You have a war room with six people trying to spin the health care numbers rather than trying to solve the problems, trying to lower the cost of care, trying to help patients get care--not empty coverage and expensive coverage. There are so many problems in the world, and what the White House has decided to spend its time and money on is set up a war room to try to spin the issues of the Obama health care law, not to solve the problems.

Go around the country, State by State. California: ObamaCare massive backlog stalls medical expansion. Connecticut: Anthem seeks 12.5 percent rate increase. Back to California: Confusion over doctor list is costly for ObamaCare enrollees in the State.

You can work your way around the country, and State by State, whether you do it from east to west, north to south, do it in alphabetical order, in every State there are horror stories about the impact of this health care law.

Connecticut again: ObamaCare glitch leading to canceled policies. Constituents calling to talk to their State representatives say their insurance policies have been canceled because the subsidies that helped discount the premiums hadn't been paid--hadn't been paid. According to people involved with the insurance companies, the issue of mistaken policy cancellation ``is real.'' So the insurance companies are saying it is absolutely true, it is absolutely real.

I see other colleagues on the floor.

I would say that in Colorado, a State that I go through every weekend at least twice going to Wyoming and coming back to DC from Wyoming, people in Colorado are very concerned. ``Colorado health exchange site needs surgery.'' This is NBC 9 News, Colorado. A reporter said:

I'm not going to sugar-coat this: The official state

website where Coloradans can shop for health insurance is a

mess. Sure [the web site] looks pretty slick at first glance.

It lets you window shop for plans and offers some (but not

all) good info about the health care law. But when you

actually create an account and start shopping, the site

offers an experience that is clunky, counter-intuitive, and

often confusing.

That sounds to me like the Obama administration--clunky, counterintuitive, and often confusing.

That's the web product being offered to Coloradans after

receiving more than $179 million in federal grants to develop

the state exchange.

This reporter says:

If you are looking for a passionate argument of the pros

and cons of [ObamaCare], as a reporter I avoid making public

policy arguments.

However, if this is the official system the people of

Colorado are getting to shop for individual coverage, it

should be a good one. Nine months after it began selling

health plans, this website is not a good one. It should be

upsetting to everyone in the state of Colorado, especially

supporters of the healthcare law.

I would apply that to anyone from Colorado who is on this Senate floor or in the House of Representatives who voted for the health care law.

He said:

It should be upsetting to everyone in the state, especially

supporters of the healthcare law. My family obtained a health

plan despite the website.

By way of background, I am not remotely anti-technology. I

grew up in Silicon Valley. I built my own computers as a kid.

I once had a job working in tech support for [a dot-com

company], a sophisticated e-commerce platform . . . My goal

in this review is to shine a light on some really basic (and

deeply frustrating) problems that any commercial dot-com

would be pulling all-nighters to fix.

Well, that shows you the difference between a commercial dot-com and the government of the United States.

It says:

For some reason, these issues have been allowed to hang

around for the better part of a year by the Connect for

Health Colorado.

And then today, the Denver Post: ``Colorado exchange expects more to drop health coverage''--giving up, not paying their premiums, not renewing their coverage. They are expecting double what was initially anticipated of the number of people who aren't paying their premiums. They realize this empty coverage they are paying a lot of money for isn't actually good for them. They are paying too much in premiums. Their deductibles are high, their copays are high.

I can go on and on. The people of America know what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted to be able to get care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. That is not what they got from President

Obama's health care law that the Democrats in this body voted for. What they got are higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles, maybe cannot keep their doctor, cannot keep their hospital--not what the President promised, not what people wanted, and it is time to go back and start over to work on a health care system that gives the American people what they truly want, truly need, and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the former Governor of North Dakota, now the Senator from North Dakota, who knows these issues very well. And I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, who talked about the administration's overreach and overregulations and the impact it has on the economy of the United States.

There is very disturbing news out this morning reported by Reuters. The headline: ``Bad to worse: US economy shrank more than expected in Q1 [of this year].'' U.S. economy shrank more than expected in Q1 of this year.

The U.S. economy contracted, not grew, not stayed the same but contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter. The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that gross domestic product fell at a 2.9-percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in 5 years--worst performance in 5 years.

It is because of the overreach, the overregulation that is coming out of this administration. That is why I rise in support with my colleagues and my colleagues who have very serious concerns about the EPA's proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule.

Many if not all of these colleagues recently joined me in introducing the Protecting Water and Property Rights of 2014 Act. In fact, 34 Senators have cosponsored this bill. More continue to join the important effort. They have joined this effort because this important and consequential legislation restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this EPA, which the EPA is trying to use to encompass all wet areas of farms, of ranches, suburban homes all across America.

More specifically, this bill eliminates the administration's proposed rule to implement the expansion of such Federal authority. Through this recently proposed rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definitions of waters of the United States. They want to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a short duration after a rainfall, but the government wants to control even that.

Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States, but this proposed rule does. It will have a huge impact on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. The rule amounts to a Federal user fee for farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains.

It forces suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and Army Corps to use their backyards after a storm. Let's be clear what is proposed in this rule. It takes money away from family farmers and ranchers who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, and it taxes suburban middle-class families who just want to recreate in their own backyard without Uncle Sam bankrupting them for the privilege.

This is the worst thing I think we can do to Americans in this economy, an economy, as I say, that is shrinking--a shrinking economy, not just stagnant, not just sitting there but actually shrinking. That is why my legislation is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, as well as the American Land Rights Association. It is because they know how devastating this rule is to farmers, to ranchers, to homeowners, and to other small businesses.

Despite what this administration may say and has said about providing ``flexibility''--they use that word--for farmers and ranchers in the proposed rule, the farmers and ranchers of America are not deceived. They will not be misled by this administration. According to the June edition of the publication National Cattlemen, an article entitled: ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS''--waters of the United States.

Let me point out that the National Cattlemen--it is the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, and the official publication of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. What that front page article says is:

Although agriculture exemptions are briefly included, they

do not come close--

Do not come close--

to meeting the needs of the cattlemen and women across the

country.

The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, McCan, stated in the article:

For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have

standing water, under this rule could potentially be

affected. We now need permission to travel and move cattle

across these types of areas.

The article lists some other major areas of agriculture not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule:

Activities not covered by the exemptions include

introduction of new cultivation techniques, planting

different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture

to crops, changing cropland to orchards and to vineyards and

changing crop land to nurseries.

Congress never intended the Clean Water Act to be used this way. The Senate, under Democratic control, never brought legislation such as the Clean Water Restoration Act to the floor that would have removed the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Act. Why? Because they knew it would have been defeated.

In fact, 52 bipartisan Members, a bipartisan group, a majority of the Senators voted for the Barrasso amendment that rejected the EPA's proposed guidance to seize all State waters during the Water Resources Development Act. Yet this proposed rule by the administration is circumventing Congress by effectively writing ``navigable'' out of the Clean Water Act.

Just as troubling as ignoring Congressional intent, the proposed rule disregards the fundamental tenet embodied in two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are decisions that limit Federal jurisdiction. It is particularly troubling that the proposed rule allows the Army Corps and EPA to

regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction.

This unprecedented exercise of power will allow the EPA to trump States rights and wipe out the authority of State and local governments to meet local land and water use decisions. It is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence--no evidence at all--that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the Clean Water Act Federal Regulatory Program.

Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the Clean Water Act's mandates and the cost of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer delays in actually getting the permits. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in 50 States, cost thousands of American jobs.

Farming and ranching, commercial and residential real estate development, electric transmission, transportation projects, bridge repairs, energy development, and mining will all be negatively affected. This is at a time when the United States has seen our economy shrink. The Reuters story today talks about shrinkage much more than predicted previously. Regulations such as this continue to damage America, damage our country, damage our families, damage our communities, damage the hard-working men and woman who want to go to work, put food on the table for their kids, raise their families, and go to work, but yet we have an administration that does not seem to see, is blinded by a role of big government. They are blinded from seeing the impact these onerous, expensive, burdensome regulations are having on the American public and certainly on our economy, as pointed out today in this news release from Reuters about the shrinking of the American economy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I concur with the distinguished Senator from Texas and the concerns that we have and we share about the lives of people all across the country and their ability to earn a living.

Tomorrow President Obama is planning to travel to Minnesota. So as I come to the floor the President is making the preparations because the President said he will spend the day in the shoes of a woman who had written a letter about the economic challenges she faces. I hope the President takes the time to actually talk to other people as well and spend a day in their shoes as well, because I think there are a lot of people in Minnesota--a lot of people in Minnesota--who would like to ask the President about his health care law and about some of the damaging side effects of the law.

The Mankato Times had a story from Minnesota schools to lose more than $200 million because of ObamaCare. A State representative is quoted as saying that wasteful spending on the health care law has left many taxpayers outraged because they will soon be making a significant impact on Minnesota schools, on the students in the State of Minnesota. Will the President address that?

According to documents released by Minnesota's Management and Budget Office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with the health care law compliance will cost school districts statewide at least $207 million. As the State representative said:

This is troubling news for our schools. This is $200

million that school districts won't be

able to use to hire more teachers to improve their

educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does

absolutely nothing for our students.

As the Minnesota State representative says: ``It is pretty sad when schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our children.''

The President says the health care law should be forcefully defended and be proud of. Is that something the President is going to forcefully defend and be proud of? You take a look at the side effects of the health care law, so many side effects of the health care law.

One of the side effects is the medical device tax that Democrats included in the law. It is a destructive tax and is hitting the people on the ground in Minnesota where the President is going to be tomorrow. This destructive tax impacts the livelihood of individuals. These are the folks who work to make things such as pacemakers, artificial joints, ultrasound equipment. It is a tax the President asked for, the President demanded and wanted as part of the health care law, and that every Democratic Senator in this Chamber voted for, including the two Democratic Senators from Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. It adds up to $3 billion a year. Companies will have to make up for that lost revenue. They are going to do it through higher prices on other individuals and moving some of their construction and their distribution overseas. Is that what the President wanted in this health care law? Will he forcefully defend and be proud of that?

According to a survey by an industry trade group about this--the folks who actually make these medical devices--that is exactly what is happening. Device manufacturers have had to cut 14,000 jobs because of the tax last year. They say they didn't hire another 19,000 they planned to hire. That is a total of 33,000 American jobs lost because of the taxes in the President's health care law. Now there are more than 350 medical device firms in Minnesota, companies in Minnesota that employ people on the ground in Minnesota, citizens who want to be hard- working individuals, supporting more than 30,000 jobs in Minnesota. Since the health care law passed, the medical device industry has lost more than 1,000 of those jobs in Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. Is the President ready to stand with those individuals about the devastating side effects of his health care law?

One of the biggest device makers in the state is called Medtronix. They announced they are moving their headquarters to Ireland. That is not only because of the President's health care law and not every job lost in the industry is due solely to this one tax, but the Obama administration's burdensome tax policies and this terrible health care law side effects are impacting people all around the country and specifically in this area in Minnesota.

One of the side effects is fewer jobs for American families. The President has said that Democrats who voted for the law should forcefully defend and be proud of it. I hope someone in Minnesota will get the chance to ask the President tomorrow if he is proud of the thousands of jobs his health care law is costing the hard-working men and women who make these medical devices in this State of Minnesota. I hope the President will spend a day in the shoes of someone who lost their job as a medical device maker.

A lot of people in Minnesota and around the country are also worried about another devastating side effect of the health care law, and that is the impact on their paychecks--smaller paychecks that a lot of families are getting specifically because of the health care law. Yesterday there was an article in the Washington Post, page 2, Tuesday, June 24th: ``Businesses gear up for employer mandate.'' Subheadline: ``Some cut workers' hours; others struggle with costs, logistics.''

Well, what happens if you cut hours? What happens if you are struggling with costs? Who is impacted by that? Obviously, the families of the individuals who are working in those businesses. The article says employers around the country have been cutting their workers' hours back to part-time status. Part time in the health care law is defined as 30 hours a week. Most people think of a 40-hour workweek. Not President Obama. He has a different view of what a full-time job is. They had to cut back to part-time status in order to avoid paying for the expensive health care mandates required by the law.

The article in the Washington Post yesterday adds that ``seasonal employees and low wage workers such as adjunct professors, cafeteria staffers'' have been especially hard hit.

It is happening in Minnesota. The President is going to be there tomorrow, and he is going to say, ``I want to walk a day with this woman and see what her life is like.'' He can hand-select somebody who makes it look as though his policies might be working, but there are people in Minnesota who are being harmed by the President's policy.

In Faribault, MN, the city is to cut hours of workers because it cannot afford to pay for their insurance. The city of Mankato, MN, had to do the same, cutting most of their workers to 29 hours a week to keep under the limits set by the health care law. In Hastings, MN, the schools have to limit how much their classroom aides, food service, and transportation employees can work. The same thing is happening in towns and counties and businesses all over the State of Minnesota where the President will be tomorrow. They are cutting back hours, reducing the size of their paychecks, and why? Because of the health care law. Is the President going to spend a day in the shoes of someone who has had their hours cut back because of the health care law? Is he going to forcefully defend his law to those people when he is in Minnesota tomorrow?

Are the two Senators from Minnesota who voted for the health care law ready to forcefully defend the smaller paychecks these people are getting? This isn't just happening in Minnesota, it is happening all around the country. You know, it is not bad enough that these people are getting hit a second time by another very expensive side effect of the health care law--smaller paychecks. Now what they are seeing is higher premiums they have to pay. According to a new study, people in Minnesota are paying a lot more for health insurance. Why? Because of the health care law. For an average 64-year-old woman in Minnesota, premiums would have been $273 a month in 2013 before the mandates in the Obama health care law kicked in. But in 2014, buying insurance through an ObamaCare exchange, her premiums jumped to over $400 a month. She is paying $1,500 more this year than she did last year because of the President's health care law.

Who is going to forcefully defend that? Who is going to come and be proud on the floor of the Senate and speak with great pride about what they have done to this woman and the effect of this health care law in her life?

For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $95 a month in 2013. Under the ObamaCare law, he is paying $140 a month--an extra $540 this year compared to last year.

Can the Senators who voted for this law be proud of these kinds of premium increases? The American people wanted reform that gave them access to quality affordable care--access, quality, affordable. What they are getting is higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles.

Republicans have offered solutions for patient-centered health care, measures such as increasing the ability of small businesses to get together and negotiate better rates, expanding health savings accounts, allowing people to buy health insurance that works for them and their families because they know what is best for them and they don't need the government and President Obama to tell them that he knows better what they need in their lives than they know what they need in their lives. Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.

The President may not want to talk about any of these tomorrow in Minnesota, all the ways his health care law is hurting people in Minnesota and around the country, hurting education, hurting jobs, hurting the economy and hurting the pocketbooks of men and women around the country. But Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor, keep talking about the burdensome side effects, the expensive side effects, and sometimes the irreversible and sometimes fatal side effects as a

result of this health care law. And we will continue to offer real solutions for better health care without the terrible side effects that the American public continues to face as a result of the President's health care law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

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

I come to the floor today with the ranking member of the Senate energy committee to discuss the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

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

I agree, Mr. President. Just think about what happened last week. Extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist group, attacked the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This terrorist group was actually kicked out of Al Qaeda for being too extreme.

It is a striking reminder to all of us--all of us in this Chamber and all of us in this Nation--how important it is for the United States to take swift action to increase energy production here in North America. Energy security is key.

President Obama essentially conceded the point last week during a press conference when he announced he was sending troops back into Iraq. He was asked what Iraq's civil war is in terms of national security interests to the United States, and he gave a couple of reasons:

Obviously issues like energy and global energy markets

continue to be important.

Despite the urgency, the President refuses to take steps to reduce the effect that Iraq's oil can have on American national security in the future. The President admits energy is a national security interest but he refuses to do anything about it that is meaningful.

What do the President and the administration think should happen? The President was asked a week or so ago, as a result of a huge spike in oil prices per barrel of oil as a result of what was happening with ISIS in the Middle East: What about all of this?

He said he was concerned, but he said: The gulf should pick up the slack and produce more oil. Not North America, not the United States. The gulf. He was talking about the Persian Gulf should pick up the slack.

Vice President Biden put out a plan last week to support energy production--but not in the United States, in the Caribbean.

America shouldn't be asking for more energy from the Caribbean or the Persian Gulf. We should be producing more energy on our own, in our own gulf coast, offshore, on Federal lands, in Alaska.

That is why last week the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The bill passed the committee. The ranking member said there was bipartisan support. Even Democrats voted for it. That bill would send oil from Canada into States such as North Dakota. The Senator from North Dakota is here on the floor. It will send oil from Canada and North Dakota to refiners in Texas and Louisiana.

Last week Democrats in the committee voted for this bill and talked about how important it is. The Keystone XL Pipeline application has been pending for more than 5 years. The State Department has done five environmental reviews of the project. All five have found the Keystone XL Pipeline will cause no significant environmental impact. We should not delay this project any longer. Democrats should push their party leaders to vote on this bill.

I am disappointed--I know my colleagues are--that Senate Democrats up to this point have chosen to block this important bill. I think it is outrageous the way a small group of Democrats refuse even to consider having a debate on this vital measure--energy security for our country, energy at home.

America needs the jobs. We need the energy. According to the U.S. State Department, this bill would support thousands and thousands of jobs. Energy is a national security issue for the United States, and this bill would help produce energy here in North America--not what the President said, where they will pick up the slack in the Persian Gulf.

The bill is on the calendar right now. The Democratic majority leader can bring it up for a vote, and we are going to ask him to do so today. The Chair of the Energy Committee should call on the majority leader and demand that he act on the bill.

We are here in the Senate and we get elected to the Senate to vote. The Keystone XL Pipeline is important. This bill is important. Democrats who want to vote against it can make their arguments and cast their vote.

So I turn to my friend and colleague, the Senator from North Dakota-- a Senator who has been an incredible leader, a former Governor of his State, a Senator who knows the issue well, who knows the value of American energy--U.S. energy, North American energy--the impact on jobs, the impact on the economy, the impact of energy as a geopolitical weapon in what is happening around the world.

I ask my friend and colleague from North Dakota if he thinks there is any reason whatsoever to delay action on this bill or if we should move ahead.

I see the Senator from Oklahoma has also joined us. So there are obviously significant and growing voices coming to the floor to say it is time to vote now, not additional delay, not additional studies, not additional talk. It is time to vote.

I turn to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, the former Governor of North Dakota--I think the longest serving Governor in the history of the State--for his impression of why it is time to vote today.