Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor because for those folks who picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning, this was the headline regarding the health care law: June 19, 2014, ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise Rates.''

The picture emerging from proposed 2015 insurance rates in the 10 States that have completed their filings, as the States have to do-- stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, in all but one of those 10, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent for next year.

That is not what the President of the United States promised the American people when he forced through a health care law with only Democrats voting for it in the House and in the Senate. What he said is that by the end of his first term, premiums for families would drop by $2,500 per family. That is not what we are seeing: Across the board, the largest insurer in each of those 10 States, anywhere between 8.5 percent to 22 percent for next year. It makes us wonder how that is going to sit with the American public when they are faced with these bills.

Republicans have been coming to this floor to talk about the health care law that Democrats in the Senate voted for, the President signed, and we talked about the many alarming side effects--the alarming side effects Americans have been feeling ever since the law has passed.

People are still trying to understand the law, and they are asking the question: How is this actually helping me? That is what people want to know, is how is the law helping them. Much of what they are hearing is not how it is helping them, but how it is hurting them. Once again, an alarming side effect in the front page of the newspaper this morning.

It seems like just about every day we pick up a newspaper and see headlines about another broken promise by the Democrats who voted for the health care law--Democrats who came to the Senate floor and the floor of the House of Representatives and said this is a good thing.

But then, of course, it was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. As more Americans are finding out what is in it, they continue to be very unhappy with what they are getting.

American families all across the country are finding out that the President's promises didn't come true. They weren't true.

As chairman of the Republican policy committee, I have been looking at the damaging side effects of the health care law around the country and in different States and what I have found meeting people around the country. Here is what I found in North Carolina:

Last Friday there was a headline in the Triangle Business Journal in the

Raleigh-Durham, NC, area on the Affordable Care Act: ``ACA forcing majority of [North Carolina] employers to change health care offerings.''

The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The headline in North Carolina is: The law is forcing a majority of employers to change their health care offerings.

The article says:

More than half of North Carolina companies are considering

radical changes to the health plans they offer employees----

Not little changes, not little tweaks, radical changes to the health plans they offer employees.

``You might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look at what you are covering,'' Hegeman says. ``Or charging more in terms of co-pay, in order to keep premiums lower.''

It quotes one human resources executive says that companies `` . . . might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look at what you are covering. . . . ''

Those are all considerations because the President made a lot of promises that are not being able to be kept, and people who actually read the law as it was being proposed knew the President's promises were not going to be able to be kept.

This is a terrifying side effect of the health care law for many people--people who now in North Carolina are worried about these radical changes to their insurance plans. That is what some companies are going to have to do to keep down the costs.

But for many people, the costs keep going up anyway, and we are seeing higher premiums in those 10 States I mentioned in the headlines today, but specifically in North Carolina, here is what WTVD, a television station in Raleigh, reported last month. They did a story entitled, ``Blue Cross missing age sales target for ACA could mean higher bills.'' So higher bills for North Carolina.

It turns out not enough young and healthy people signed up for the insurance in the State's ObamaCare exchange.

The President said: Oh, we will get all these young, healthy people signing up, buying insurance that--in my opinion--they don't need, don't want, can't afford, will never use. The President said: We will get all these healthy people signing up.

It didn't happen. They missed the sales targets in terms of what they expected in terms of the age of those signing up. So the biggest insurer in the State in North Carolina says it may have to raise rates next year.

The news story quoted a woman named Amanda LaRoque. She and her husband own their own business, they pay their own health insurance, and they say their premiums have doubled since they signed up for the Obama health care law. They are now paying $999 a month for two people--almost $1,000 a month for two people.

I remember listening to President Obama and President Bill Clinton having a discussion in New York a couple days before the exchange opened. The President was saying: Easier to use than Amazon, and he said: Cheaper than your cell phone bill.

The plan was going to cost less than your cell phone bill.

This couple in North Carolina says they are paying almost $1,000 a month and their rates are going even higher. So it makes us wonder was the President of the United States again trying to mislead the American people intentionally? Did he not understand the law which was written behind closed doors over there in Harry Reid's office? Did he not care? Does he still not care? But that is what people are seeing and experiencing as a result of the President's health care law.

But this couple is not the only one paying more because of the health care law. According to a new analysis by the Manhattan Institute, people all over the country are going to have to pay more--much more-- than what the President told them, much more than they ever anticipated.

The Manhattan Institute found that for an average 64-year-old woman in North Carolina, her premiums would have been $210 a month in 2013, before the ObamaCare mandates and everything else kicked in. In 2014, 1 year later and all the mandates, buying insurance through the ObamaCare exchange her premiums almost triple to $623 a month. She is paying almost $5,000 a year more this year than last year because of the President's health care law that the Democrats voted for in the House and in the Senate. The President said it would lower premiums by $2,500 a year. Yet she is seeing her premiums go up by $5,000 a year.

For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $80 a month in 2013. Under the President's health care law, $217 a month--an extra $1,600 a year than last year. That is not what the President promised him.

President Obama then goes and gives a speech not that long ago and said: Democrats who voted for this law--and there are a lot of Members of this body that fit this description. Democrats who voted for this law should forcefully defend and be proud of it--forcefully defend and be proud, the President of the United States said just a couple weeks ago. Is there a Senator in this body who is willing to stand and forcefully defend the fact that people in North Carolina are paying double or triple for insurance? Is there anyone who wants to defend this expensive side effect of the health care law?

I know some people have been helped by the law. Some people are paying less for insurance than they would have before, but many people are paying much more. That is because the people who pay less are getting a subsidy from Washington to help hide the rate hikes that everybody else is facing.

President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Government doesn't solve problems; it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what is going on with the President's health care law. The Democrats who voted for this health care law did not solve the problem with our health care system. They just threw more money at it to hide the fact that the law actually made things worse. People wanted reform that gave them access to quality care, that gave them affordable care. No one wanted more expensive coverage.

I will talk about one more example. That is the devastating side effect of smaller paychecks some families will be facing because of the Democrats' health care law. Another side effect, smaller paychecks.

The law says employers--including State governments, including local governments, school districts, communities, counties--have to cover people who work 30 hours a week or more and treat them as full-time employees. They have to cover those people with insurance and treat them as full-time employees. That is what the law considers full-time employees.

There was another story in Raleigh, NC, on WTVD. It said State agencies--we are not talking about for-profit businesses. State agencies are looking at cutting the hours of part-time workers to keep them under that 30-hour limit.

The North Carolina Agriculture Department has about 240 part-time employees who are now working more than 30 hours--less than 40, more than 30--240 of these folks at the North Carolina Agriculture Department.

How about the North Carolina Department of Transportation? They have almost 600 people in exactly the same situation. So North Carolina is going to have to look very closely at what to do with those individuals. If the hours are cut back to under 30 hours, that can mean smaller paychecks.

One expert at Duke University told the TV station he expects the State will see 300,000 full-time workers be moved to part time. Local governments, State governments, private employers, they are all having to make these same decisions. Why? Because of the health care law. Those 300,000 workers moved to part time by the definition--not what the man or woman on the street thinks of as the definition of full time, but what the health care law defines it as. That is a big hit to people's paychecks, and it is another very harmful side effect in the health care law.

It didn't have to be that way. Republicans have offered solutions for patient-centered health care reform such as increasing the ability of small businesses to get together, join together, negotiate for better rates, expand health savings accounts, allow people to buy insurance that works best for them and their family and shop in other States to do it, and not have to

buy this whole big list of insurance the President says they need when it is not what their family needs. It is not what they need for their kids, for their families, for their spouses, not what they want, not what they can afford, because the President essentially thinks he knows better than American families about their own personal situation. Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not lower costs as a subsidy for some people, but lower costs for everybody. That is what we are working on, lower cost of care.

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 terrible side effects, because we know the list is there, one side effect after another. They are costly, harmful, some are irreversible, and nothing that the American people wanted.

On the front-page headline today is ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise Rates.'' Insurance rates in 10 States that have completed their filings, stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, all but one of them, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5 and 22 percent for next year. The American people will once again realize that the Democrats and the President who voted for this health care law have broken their trust, broken their promises to the American people, and the American people deserve better.

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

Madam President, on Saturday, June 21, 2014, Senator Alan Simpson and his wife Ann will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in wishing them heartfelt congratulations.

Their children Bill, Colin, and Sue, sent an announcement honoring this milestone saying their parents are ``celebrating 60 years of love, commitment and compromise.'' Those of us who have known and worked with Al and Ann Simpson have seen this spirit of love and devotion in every aspect of their lives.

For six decades, Wyoming has been fortunate to learn from Al and Ann. Though they met much earlier, the couple first began dating while they were students at the University of Wyoming. Over 60 years later, they are a true power couple. Each complements the other in every way--they are resilient, compassionate, and know the value of compromise. This special relationship has evolved into a lifelong partnership that serves as a model for all of us to follow.

My wife Bobbi and I look forward to celebrating this outstanding milestone with Al and Ann when we see them in Cody on July 4th. We will tell them what an inspiration they have been, not only to us, but to people all across the State. And, we will thank them for their service to Wyoming and our great Nation.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. I believe that Congress should do all it can to push the Obama administration to approve this project. This will, of course, help create American jobs; they will come along with the Keystone XL Pipeline.

To me, this morning's committee vote was nothing more than a show vote. It is going to do nothing to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will put no pressure on the White House. It will not put a single shovel in the ground building the pipeline because the Democratic majority leader has absolutely no intention of allowing this bill to get to a vote right here on the Senate floor. The majority leader knows that if Senators got the chance to vote on this bill, there is a very high likelihood it would pass. President Obama cannot afford that, and the majority leader will not do anything the President does not want. The majority leader will not do anything to anger the extremists who fund the Democratic Party and who oppose an ``all of the above'' energy strategy in a plan that includes oil.

I know the last thing Americans and the people in the gallery want to hear about is Senate process and Senate procedures, but here is why it matters: There are issues that are important to this country, issues such as jobs, energy, and controlling government spending. There are problems we need to solve in this country, and they are not being voted on here in the Senate because the majority leader continues to block votes. He has blocked votes, he has blocked amendments, and he has even blocked debate on one issue after another.

I believe the majority leader has abused every power at his disposal and even broken the rules of the Senate--rules that have been in place for over a century. He has done this to give himself new powers. Over the past 6\1/2\ years the majority leader has taken an unprecedented stand against action in the Senate. He has used tactics such as the so- called filling the amendment tree on bills. That means he stops anyone else from offering amendments other than himself. He has used what is called rule XIV of the Standing Rules to bypass committees, so we are only able to talk about what he wants to talk about, not what our constituents want to talk about, what we hear about from home, or what other committee members want to talk about. These kinds of tactics may make it easier for Senator Reid to get what he wants, but they shut Senators--Republicans and Democrats--out of legislating and they shut out the American people whom all of us represent, Democrats as well as Republicans.

Senator Reid has filled the amendment tree at least 85 times since he became majority leader. That is more than twice as many times as the previous six majority leaders combined.

Between July 2013 and May of this year, Republicans in the Senate filed 810 amendments, but we only got a total of 9 votes--810 different ideas brought forward by Republicans, and Senator Reid has blocked vote after vote, to the point where we have gotten only 9 votes on 810 amendments, and this is almost in a full year.

If you want a comparison, take a look at the House of Representatives, where the Republicans are in the majority but the minority party, the Democrats, have an opportunity to offer amendments and have votes. Over that same time period in the House of Representatives, the Democrats have gotten 132 votes on their amendments. The Democratic minority on the House side has had 132 votes, while the Republican minority on the Senate side has gotten a total of 9.

In the Senate, it is not just the Republicans who are not getting their votes. The majority leader is blocking the Democrats as well. During that same time, from July of 2013 to May of 2014, Democrats introduced 676 amendments on legislation on the floor, and there were only 7 rollcall votes on 676 amendments. I guess it is not surprising that Republicans cannot get votes on their amendments, but it is very surprising that the Democrats cannot get votes because only the majority leader gets a vote.

It is the same story on appropriations bills, and that is why I am here at this time--because we are dealing with appropriations bills. They are some of the most important bills we are supposed to consider in Congress. These are the bills which determine how much Washington spends every year on all the discretionary programs. We started debating the first of these yesterday, and we may do so over the next few weeks.

It used to be that the Senate would take up these bills one by one, and Senators would get a chance to offer amendments and to represent the people who elected them to office. Not anymore. Under this Democratic majority leader, the amendment process on appropriations bills has been almost completely shut down. In the past 2 years Republicans have gotten just six amendments to appropriations bills. Senate Democrats only got one amendment during that same period. The Senate approved trillions--trillions--of dollars in Washington spending, but Harry Reid allowed action on just seven amendments total. In the 8 years before Senator Reid became majority leader, the Senate processed an average of almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills every year--every year almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills.

Senators from both parties have been shut out of the process, and the people we represent have been shut out of the process as well--all by Senator Reid. It is the same kind of power grab we saw last September when the majority leader used the so-called nuclear option to stop debate in the Senate. He radically changed the rules of the Senate to strip the rights of the minority party. Originally, it had to do with eliminating the filibuster on nominations, but it is the same effect. The majority leader grabbed more power for himself and took away the right of anyone else in the Senate to represent their constituents.

This is not how it is supposed to be. The Senate was designed to be a place where we debate these issues and where political minorities get fair representation. The father of our Constitution James Madison explained that the Senate's role was ``first to protect the people against the rulers.'' James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated that the Senate's role is ``first to protect the people against the rulers.'' That was the point of this body. That is why over its history the Senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections for political minorities. Well, the way the Senate has been run by Majority Leader Reid, it has been embarrassing, it has been unfair, and it has been insulting to the American people.

Again, I know this isn't the most exciting topic of discussion for people to hear, but the damage that is being done by the Senate's failure to act is very real. Congress has important legislation to debate, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, but the majority leader won't even allow a vote on the bill. Our Nation has a total debt of $17.5 trillion, but the majority leader of the Senate blocks amendments that could improve the appropriations bills and maybe start to control Washington's wasteful spending. We should have an open amendment process on these appropriations bills this year, as we should have had in previous years, and we should be starting with the bill that is on the floor today.

It is time for Democrats to stop the show votes and allow real votes on issues important to American families.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about some of the side effects we have been seeing from the health care law.

When President Obama and Democrats in Congress were selling their health care law, they made a lot of promises. One of the big ones was that the health care law would save money. They said it was going to save money because people would be going to see physicians in offices for routine care instead of going to the emergency room.

President Obama said:

If everybody's got coverage, then they're not going to the

emergency room for treatment.

Well, just like promises about keeping your doctor if you like your doctor or keeping your insurance if you like your insurance--promises the President made--it turns out the President's claims about emergency room care weren't true either. That is what the Louisville Courier Journal says they have seen in the State of Kentucky. This was the headline on Monday, just a couple days ago: ``More patients flocking to ERs under ObamaCare.'' That is not what the President said, but that was the headline.

The article says:

It wasn't supposed to work this way, but since the

Affordable Care Act took effect in January, Norton Hospital

has seen its packed emergency room become even more crowded,

with about 100 more patients a month.

That is a 12-percent spike in the number of patients at the emergency room of that hospital in Louisville. As the article said, it wasn't supposed to happen that way, and that is why I come to the floor to talk about the side effects of the President's health care law.

There are many side effects. They are harmful. They are expensive. Some are irreversible. But they are all related to promises made to the American people by a President who I don't believe fully understands his law. And I know there are many people in this body who voted for it who, I understand, never read it in the first place. Those are the concerns I have. Those are the concerns I hear at home in Wyoming every week, and I heard them this past weekend all around the Cowboy State.

For the President, this emergency room situation may be just another surprising side effect of the health care law. And they are not seeing this just in Kentucky. According to a survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians, it is happening all across the country. Their survey found that 58 percent of emergency room doctors say they are seeing more patients since the beginning of the year. A doctor in Virginia told the Wall Street Journal that the health care law ``is going to stretch emergency doctors further, and that has implications on how quickly we can get people through.'' When the emergency rooms have more patients, it involves longer wait times for those patients.

It seems the Democrats who voted for this health care law--many without reading it--were so focused on getting people insurance coverage that they came up with a system that actually makes it harder for people to get care. It was interesting listening to the President continuing to give speeches about coverage and ignoring the fact that people were worried about actually getting health care.

That is a very dangerous side effect, but it is not the only side effect of the law. There are also incredibly expensive side effects of the health care law.

There is an expensive side effect that a lot of people are starting to hear more about as States release information on insurance premiums for next year.

Late last Friday the State of Maryland released their rates. We could tell it was going to be bad news for people in Maryland because they snuck the numbers out late Friday afternoon. It seems that is what happens when bad news comes out--they get it out late Friday afternoon. According to the Washington Post, the biggest insurance company in Maryland is CareFirst. This was in the Washington Post Metro section on Saturday, June 7: ``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.''

The article says:

Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is

proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for

consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal

health care law.

The President of the United States said the health care law was going to save families $2,500 a year by the end of his first term. But what we are seeing here--Metro section, Washington Post, Saturday: ``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.''

Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is

proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for

consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal

health care law.

That is a very costly side effect of the health care law.

Remember, the health exchange--where people are supposed to buy this insurance in Maryland--was so broken that they had to start over again. State officials spent $118 million to set up their own exchange. Now they are going to use software from Connecticut's exchange. Nobody got care for that money. That is wasted taxpayer dollars. Nobody got care.

Connecticut may have gotten the software right, but people there are going to have to pay more for insurance too. The Washington Post says that two insurance carriers in Connecticut have proposed rate increases averaging about 12 percent. That is the average. Some people will have smaller increases, but many people will pay much more.

President Obama said Democrats in Congress should forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. That is what he said they should do-- forcefully defend and be proud. Are there any Democrats who are ready to come down to the floor and forcefully defend these dangerous side effects of more people going to the emergency room, stretching overworked emergency room doctors even thinner, making for longer wait times in emergency rooms? Are Democrats going to come to the floor and forcefully defend and be proud of the law when they see expensive side effects such as the hefty premium increases in Maryland of 23 to 30 percent, 12 percent in Connecticut?

It didn't have to be this way. Republicans offered ways to reform America's health care system back when we were debating the law, but President Obama and Democrats in Congress didn't want to hear it. We warned about some of these brutal side effects of the health care law that were going to hurt people, and we talked about bipartisan ideas that could have helped to maintain the access people had for the doctor they liked. That is what people want. They want the doctor they liked, and at the same time they want care to be more affordable. They want access to care, quality care, affordable care, not empty coverage, expensive coverage, which is what the President has provided.

We are going to keep talking about measures that would expand access to health savings accounts to save money for families as well as for employers. I talked about that when some of us met with the President in 2010. The President didn't want to listen. It is too bad, but it is not too late.

The Republicans are going to keep talking about letting consumers buy health insurance across State lines to increase competition, to let them shop for options they actually need, want, and will work for their family. That could actually help bring down prices, not drive them up as the Democrats' health care laws do. These are ideas Republicans have offered from the beginning, ways to give the American people care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. That is all people wanted in the beginning. Instead they got these harmful, hurtful, expensive side effects.

We know what the American people have asked for. We know what they wanted, and that is what Republicans are going to continue to try to give them, not the empty promises from President Obama and Democrats who told the American people that the President and Democrats knew better what they needed or wanted than what the American people knew worked best for them and their families.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Veterans Health Care

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with huge concerns about the Obama health care law. I do it as a physician, as a doctor, who has taken care of families all around the State of Wyoming for a couple of decades; as a past president of our State medical society; as someone committed to preventive care, coordinated care; as the medical director of the Wyoming health fairs to give people low- cost screenings for health care around the State Those continue today. There is one in the small community of Afton, WY, this very Saturday--2 days from today. So the effort continues to actually make sure people can get prevention, early recognition of problems, and actual care.

The President's health care law hasn't done that. The President keeps focusing on the word ``coverage'' instead of what people wanted, which was care. It is interesting today, because in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, front page, today's newspaper, headline: Health-care law plagued by inconsistencies. At least 2 million people, the headline says, enrolled in insurance have problems with data that could affect their coverage. This is an Associated Press article on the front page of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. A huge paperwork headache for the government could also be jeopardizing coverage for some of the people who just got health insurance under the President's health care law.

The President went on television 4 days before the kickoff of the exchanges and said this is going to be easier to use than amazon.com. He said that. It is cheaper than your cell phone bill. And, of course, he said people could keep their doctor if they liked their doctor.

When people see how this rolled out and the problems they have had with it, they now have huge concerns about whether they can actually trust the Federal Government with anything. They see all of the problems coming out of Washington and they are saying, Why should we trust the government, the Washington-based government, with anything?

Let's take a look at some of the States that set up their own exchange. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal: State Exchanges Seek Costly Fix. Five States that launched health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act expect to spend as much as $240 million to fix their sites or switch to the Federal marketplace.

Not one person is going to get care because of that. That is $240 million to fix the bad sites that have already wasted money. How can people in these States of Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada--how can they say this is good for them? This health care law-- for people who wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost find more wasted government money--in Oregon alone, $255 million, money previously spent. The FBI is investigating them now in Oregon because of this. They say they want more money to upgrade the system. Minnesota: $141 million. What are we hearing from Minnesota? We are hearing school districts say we have to pay a lot more, so we are not going to be able to pay for teachers. We are not going to be able to pay for bus drivers. We are going to have to take it away from students to pay for the mistakes of this administration, this government, this law forced down the throats of the American public and voted for by many in this Chamber who never read it. They never read the bill, because they trusted Nancy Pelosi. She said, First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

We don't have to turn the clock back very far to go to the June 4 article posted in Roll Call, the local paper. Headline: Fiscal diagnosis--now, as a physician we do a physical diagnosis, but they are talking about a fiscal diagnosis: Fiscal Diagnosis Only Gets Tougher for Health Care Law. The first paragraph says, For Democratic lawmakers who were hesitant to sign onto this sweeping 2010 health care law, one of the most powerful selling points was that the Affordable Care Act would actually reduce the federal budget deficit . . .

Four years later, headline: Fiscal Diagnosis Only Gets Tougher for Health Care Law.

So we can talk about all of those numbers, but I want to talk about people who have actually been hurt by the health care law. There are people who have been helped, but there are many who have been hurt. People in my State--thousands and thousands--have had letters of cancellation. If they have gone onto the Web site and bought insurance, they found they paid a lot more for what they had to buy, because a lot of times it wasn't actually what they needed for themselves or for their family or what was best for them; it included coverage they would never use and don't want but still had to pay for, because the President seems to think he knows better what that family in Wyoming wants or needs than they do. That is not what America was built on--the government telling people what they have to buy, what they have to choose, what they have to have as their health insurance or their care.

It is interesting that even National Public Radio has a story about a couple, a family--because one of my colleagues from Connecticut comes to the floor and says he thinks ObamaCare is working. This couple says it doesn't work--does not work. ``Frustrated By The Affordable Care Act, One Family Opts Out.'' This is a family in Texas, reported on National Public Radio. Rachel's husband wanted to make sure they had insurance. Rachel was skeptical, but Nick, her husband, went on line and started shopping. He had a lot of trouble getting through the glitchy Web site at first, but eventually he found a plan that would work just for his wife. He was concerned about his wife. She was pregnant. So this past January, as soon as the plan began, Nick printed out a list of obstetricians from the plan's Web sites. He said: I handed it to Rachel, fully confident, fully feeling like I had accomplished something for her, I had come through for my wife.

Well, they called obstetricians because she was pregnant. Some would just say, We don't take Obama. One of the best was: ``The doctor takes it here in the actual practice, but whatever hospital you use''--none of those hospitals take ObamaCare.

She said: It was mind numbing, because I was sitting there thinking, I am paying close to $400 a month just for me to have insurance that doesn't even work. What am I paying for?

How could this not be working, her husband said. The United States Government has set this up. It is this whole big deal, he said. They are having commercials everywhere saying we need to use this, and these people are just saying, no, no, no, and it just made me so mad.

So, as the headline says, they opted out.

That is what the President has given the American people; not affordable care, not available care, not quality care, not access to care but a lot of promises not delivered upon. Many people across this country have been hurt by this health care law.

I am going to continue to work on ways to reform health care in America in a way that is good for patients as well as the providers who take care of them, and responsible for the American taxpayers.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor as the Senate begins the debate on the nomination of Sylvia Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. If she is confirmed for that job, she would be responsible for implementing thousands of pages of regulations related to the President's health care law. I think it is appropriate, as we consider this nomination, to take a little bit of time and talk about the state of the President's health care law.

Just this morning I visited with a number of people from Uinta County, WY. I will tell you what they know and what we all know, and that is there are many dangerous side effects of the law, such as people losing access to their doctor and getting smaller paychecks.

Today I want to talk specifically about the expensive side effect so many Americans are facing, and that is how much health insurance premiums are rising because of the law. States are starting to release the proposed premiums insurance companies expect to charge next year under the Obama health care law. The numbers are not good for the American people--for people who wanted affordable care, quality

care, and access to care, the kinds of things the President of the United States looked into the camera and promised them.

Virginia was one of the first States to put out the numbers. What is happening in the State of Virginia? Every health plan sold in the State exchange expects to raise its rates next year. The State expects some people to pay as much as 17 percent more next year.

In Vermont, it is a similar story. There are two companies offering plans in the State exchange. Yesterday we learned that one intends to raise rates 10 percent, the other expects to raise its rates 15 percent next year.

Last Friday Ohio released its proposed rates for people buying insurance through the exchange. The average premium in the State's individual market is expected to be 13 percent higher next year than it was last year. According to State insurance regulators, it is bad news, but it is what they expected.

The State Lieutenant Governor said:

Continued and unnecessary headwinds out of Washington are

making it more difficult for job creators, hard-working

Ohioans and their families to purchase health insurance.

President Obama said the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. Is there a Democrat in this body--even one--who is willing to come to the floor and forcefully defend premium increases of 13 percent, 15 percent, or 17 percent in 1 year alone?

More States are going to be releasing their new premiums all summer. More people around the country are going to see these kinds of rate increases. This is an alarming side effect of the President's health care law. That is on top of the rate increases people have already had to pay for insurance for this year.

It is astonishing when you look at the numbers. It is not just families buying health insurance through the exchanges who are getting slammed. USA Today ran a headline last week which said:

More employees are getting hit with higher health insurance

premiums and co-payments, and many don't have the money to

cover unexpected medical expenses, a new report finds.

The report found that 56 percent of companies increased their employees' share of health premiums for copayments for doctors' visits last year after the health care law came into effect, and 59 percent of companies intend to do the same thing this year. So people buying insurance in the exchange are being hurt, people who get insurance through work are being hurt, and small businesses are being hurt as well.

There was an article in the Alaska Dispatch about this last Thursday. It said: ``Alaska's small businesses feel the pinch of rising health care costs.'' The article tells the story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. He wants to offer health insurance coverage, but he is paying $5,000 a month more than he paid last year for his share of the insurance. He is somebody who wants to provide insurance, but it is now $5,000 more a month for his 24 employees. He says the costs are crippling and that it is like meeting another payroll every month. This small business owner said the health care law is ``killing me.'' He says, ``I just don't know how long we can keep absorbing these costs.'' These are costs put on this business owner in Alaska by every Member of the Senate who voted for this health care law--every one of them.

I invite any one of them to come down here to forcefully defend this law as the President requests that they do and be proud of what they have done to this small business owner. Are Democrats in the Senate who voted for this health care law proud of what the law is doing to this small business owner in Alaska? Are they willing to forcefully defend his having to pay an extra $5,000 a month? That is what people are dealing with.

There is a story which just came out today about North Carolina-- another State where a Senator has said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The headline to this story is ``ObamaCare cripples North Carolina small business.''

It says:

A North Carolina woman currently living her dream--to own a

salon--could soon shatter and crumble, leaving her employees

to pay astronomical costs for health insurance, all because

of ObamaCare.

Julia Vittorio, owner of Fresh Salon for the past five

years, is worried that she will not be able to provide her

employees with health insurance.

She said: ``I think you just want the best for your employees.''

I think that is what many people around the country want: the best for their employees.

She said: ``We are a small business and it's very much like a family, so I care about our staff.''

That is what she told a television station, WCNC in Charlotte.

She previously offered her employees health insurance and

paid part of it, but has been forced to reconsider her

decision because of the rising costs of premiums.

``We've been very proud to even carry it for this long, but

it's certainly a concern moving into the future if we're

going to be able to keep doing it,'' she explained.

Veronica Cook, a hairdresser who has worked at Fresh Salon since it opened, said: ``It's frustrating and scary and you don't know what to expect.''

I think that applies to many people around the country as a result of the President's health care law--this quote: ``It's frustrating and scary and you don't know what to expect.'' She is not sure what she will do if she has to pay for her own insurance. That is what this devastating side effect of the President's health care law is doing to people all around the country.

The President says he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Democrats say it over and over. Is this small business owner getting a fair shot? Are the families of Ohio getting a fair shot when their premiums go up as much as 13 percent next year?

Some Democrats who voted for the health care law have come out and said that the rates may be going up, but not as fast as maybe they would have without the law. But let's take a step back. When they were trying to pass this health care law, Democrats said it would only raise premiums--no. Democrats never said it would only raise premiums by 10 to 13 percent. No. They said it would drop premiums by $2,500 a year. That is what the President said--$2,500 per family per year, and he said by the end of his first term.

Well, we met with the President in February of 2010 at the White House at the roundtable discussion. Senator Lamar Alexander, my colleague from Tennessee, asked specifically about the predictions that the premiums, as we have seen, would go up. The President was making these promises, claims that they would go down. The President denied again to each of us in a face-to-face meeting that they would go up. The President said: ``That's just not the case.''

Well, now what we do know is it is the case, and it was the case all along. People believed the President when he promised he would save them money. They thought that Democrats were giving them this fair shot the President talks about. Now they are finding out what they got: higher premiums, higher costs, higher deductibles, higher copays, loss of coverage, you can't keep your doctor. It is hard to believe the President of the United States.

This is not what people wanted. People wanted a fair shot. But it is not what the President and Democrats in Congress actually gave them in the health care law. Many of them who voted for it never read it. Nancy Pelosi said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. But it did not stop the Democrats who voted for it from making those same promises--promises: If you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Premiums will go down. All of those promises--each one of them turned out to be not true.

A fair shot is exactly what Republicans have offered, and that is-- and I can tell you this as a doctor--what patients want is patient- centered care, not government-controlled and mandated care--a patient- centered approach that would solve the biggest problems that families face: access to care, cost of care, quality care. That means measures such as allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy insurance more cheaply for their employees. It means letting people shop for health insurance that actually works for them and works for their families, not what the President says is best for them.

So in closing let me just say, these are just a couple of the solutions Republicans have offered to give Americans the care they need from a doctor

they choose at lower costs, without the outrageous, expensive side effects of the President's health care law.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services because as a physician I am very concerned and want to make sure Americans can get health care. I think getting care is actually much more important than getting the insurance component of that, but that is nothing new, and I said that to the President. In so many ways, the President has actually offered empty coverage but is not actually providing an opportunity for care for people. We have seen situations where people are paying higher premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles, all of which are the many side effects of the President's health care law.

When I hear my colleague from Connecticut make reference to rates going up, let's face it. What the President of the United States said is that premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first term. The President didn't say, well, it will not go up as fast or that it will go up some, but don't worry about it. The facts are that people are continuing to be hurt by the health care law, and much of it is as a result of the expense of the law.

Last week USA Today had a report that said: ``Many employees hit with higher health care premiums.'' They go on to say:

More than half of companies increased employees' share of

health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in

2013. . . .

Why? Because of the health care law. What other things have businesses that are trying to provide health insurance for their employees had to do? Thirty-two percent of the time the businesses delayed raises for the individuals because the cost of insurance under the President's health care law has gone up so much. People who are concerned about take-home pay are getting hurt by the health care law.

According to this USA Today report, 22 percent eliminated or cut back on benefits, and 21 percent of these folks were cut back from full-time work to part-time work. That is obviously a hit to somebody's take-home pay.

The report says health care premiums have increased 80 percent since 2003, nearly three times faster than wages and nearly three times faster than inflation. The health care law has actually failed to do what the President promised when it comes to actually providing care and affordable care.

As I look around the country, it is interesting to see what is happening. There was a report out very recently about hundreds of thousands of Iowans who don't have coverage. The report goes on to talk about a woman who said she drove a half hour from

Mitchellville recently to seek care for flu-like symptoms at a free clinic in Des Moines. She is an assistant manager of a convenience store. She has been offered insurance by her employer but would have to pay $111 every 2 weeks for her part of the premium, and she said: ``I can't afford that. . . . There's no way on Earth.''

Our colleague from Connecticut said it is working. It is not working, and it is because of the mandates of the law, such as the mandate that people have to get insurance that the government says they need as opposed to what may be good for them or their family.

The woman, Reinna, said she heard most Americans are required to have health insurance this year or pay a penalty. Democrats who voted for this said if someone doesn't buy the insurance, they have to pay a penalty. She heard that and learned it was equal to 1 percent of her income.

According to this article from the Des Moines Register where they had their primary elections yesterday, in Iowa, the Des Moines Register: The lady laughed ruefully at the prospect. ``I don't care. They can fight me for it.''

So this is a woman in Iowa, knows about the penalty, knows about the mandates, and she would say to my colleague from Connecticut who was just on the floor that it is not working for her.

She bristled at the new requirement to obtain insurance. She said, if we could afford it, do you think we would be standing out here? Of course, where she was standing was in a line for a free clinic, nodding at a half dozen others in line on the sidewalk waiting for the free clinic to hold one of its twice-a-week sessions.

I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly, to talk about the issues of the health care law as a doctor trying to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, and seeing that the President's health care law has failed miserably because so many people have been hurt by this health care law. They have had their insurance canceled, even though the President said, Oh, no, it won't happen. He said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. National folks who assessed this called that the lie of the year.

We also see that many people cannot keep their doctors, and they are finding out that their copays are higher, their premiums are higher.

It is interesting, because it is affecting people in so many different ways. Minnesota is another State where there has been a lot of debate and discussion about the health care law. The headline in the Mankato Times: ``Minnesota Schools to lose more than $200 Million because of ObamaCare.'' My colleague from Connecticut just said it is working. Well, if it is working, why are the Minnesota schools losing $200 million because of the health care law? The article says: State Representative Paul Torkelson said the wasteful spending on ObamaCare that has left many taxpayers outraged will soon be making a significant impact on Minnesota's schools--a significant impact on Minnesota schools. According to documents released by Minnesota's management and budget office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with Affordable Care Act compliance will cost school districts statewide at least $207 million.

It is troubling news for our schools, the State representative said. This is $200 million that school districts won't be able to use to hire more teachers or improve their educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does absolutely nothing for our students.

The senator concludes by saying: It is pretty sad when schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our children.

So I come to the floor when I hear my colleague from Connecticut saying it is working to say it is not working all across the country. It is not working in so many ways that the President said it is. The President said Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. I don't know how a Senator can stand up who voted for this and be proud of what we are seeing happening to school districts all across the State of Minnesota.

The President continues to tout some number of people who signed up across the country, and I always ask, How many of them actually have insurance?

In Oregon, a story just out in the last week or two, in The Oregonian: Thousands have not paid premiums for Cover Oregonian health policies, placing coverage at risk. So in spite of what my colleague from Connecticut may have said, this article says a large number of people who have signed up for private health insurers through the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange have not paid their first month's premiums, meaning they are at risk of going without coverage through November.

More than 81,000 people went through Cover Oregon--either through paper or electronic applications--to select a private plan. We know about the failures of that exchange. We know that the FBI, I believe, is investigating it. Of those, 5,000 have already canceled policies or been terminated for lack of payment. Thousands more have not yet paid their first month's premiums, meaning they have not completed their enrollment, according to the carriers.

The President talks about the numbers of enrollees. I don't know how many people actually paid to continue--to consistently say they have insurance, and consistent insurance, all the way through. Insurers say anywhere between 66 to 80 percent of consumers have paid, meaning anywhere from 20 to 34 percent have not. So it is hard for me to say that things are working.

It is interesting. Unions, which have supported the law, have come out with concerns. UNITE HERE, a union in Las Vegas, representing many of the casino workers, 2,000 housekeepers, waiters, others at 9 of 10 downtown Las Vegas casinos, are concerned about the cost. One of the union leaders has said, when we first supported the calls for health care reform, we thought it was going to bring costs down.

That did not happen, and that is why I am here on the floor.

Certainly. Absolutely. Yes, Mr. President.

I would say that many people in Oregon have been helped and many have been hurt. That is the problem with this health care law. There are people who have been helped, absolutely. I just believe that the costly side effects, the harmful side effects, the dangerous side effects of this health care law have actually hurt people. So for people who may have been helped, there are as many, if not more, who have been hurt through higher premiums, higher copays, loss of their doctor, can't go to their hospital--all of those things--plus, at the expense of significant amounts of taxpayer money wasted. I think we are seeing that situation in Oregon right now with potential lawsuits being filed, FBI investigating, whether there was oversight, and hundreds of millions of dollars, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, of wasted taxpayer dollars. Oregon, I believe Massachusetts as well; Maryland, Minnesota, States that I have been talking about here.

I am referring to people who have been hurt by the health care law all across the country. I worry about the more than 5 million people who have lost their coverage as a result of the health care law.

Thank you. I am merely trying to respond to my colleague.

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

I will be less than 2 minutes.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, today marks the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

The violent suppression and forcible dispersion in Tiananmen Square by the Government of China resulted in the death and injury of peaceful demonstrators.

I have worked with Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, through the Foreign Relations Committee, on a resolution expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, those tortured, and those imprisoned due to their participation in the peaceful democracy movement in Tiananmen Square.

Our resolution also calls out the Government of China for subjecting its citizens to physical attacks, harassment, and detention for attempting to discuss or commemorate the events of June 1989.

The Chinese authorities to this day continue to block and censor public discussions and events marking the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

The resolution also condemns the ongoing human rights abuses by the Government of China.

The United States has a long record of championing liberty and freedom around the world. The Senate must stand up and support those individuals who have in the past and continue to this very day to demand their rights in China.

So Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 383, S. Res. 451. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Obama administration released a new plan intended to shut down American powerplants. Instead of celebrating his policies in the Rose Garden, President Obama delegated the bad news to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Make no mistake about it; what they are announcing today is another step in the President's plan to make electricity rates ``necessarily skyrocket.'' Remember, that is what the President promised Americans when he was running for President the first time in 2008.

Of course, when he was elected Congress said no--no to his radical plan. Even when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and the Democrats had 60 Members of the Senate--even with complete Democratic domination in both Houses of Congress--Congress still said: No, Mr. President, this is a bad idea.

So the President decided he knew better than the American people, the elected representatives. He decided to go around Congress and go around the American people.

I turn to the front page of today's Wyoming Tribune Eagle out of Cheyenne, WY, and the headline is: ``Obama Lets EPA Do His Dirty Work.'' The subheadline says: ``The president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack.'' On the front page of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle they go on to say:

When the Obama administration unveils its much-anticipated

proposal to curb power plant emissions, this cornerstone of

the president's climate change policy--the most significant

environmental regulation of his term--will not be declared in

a sun-bathed Rose Garden news conference or from behind the

lectern in a major speech.

It will not be announced by the president at all, but

instead by his head of the Environmental Protection Agency,

while President Barack Obama adds his comments in an off-

camera conference call. . . .

Talk about something that is unpopular with the American people, it is this.

About 1 year ago, the President put out rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new powerplants--powerplants that were being constructed--but today--today--his Environmental Protection Agency is applying tight new limits on the emissions of existing powerplants-- powerplants that are already there producing energy.

The administration says it is going to allow States ``flexibility'' in how they meet the new limits. I believe any ``flexibility'' that is being offered is just an illusion. States will have a severely limited number of options for what they can do to meet the standards. Every one of those options is going to raise the cost of energy for American families. That means consumers will not even get the illusion of flexibility; they will get higher energy costs.

Businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their own higher bills because it is not just going to be families, when they turn on the light switch, who are going to get a higher electric bill. As the President said, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, but businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their higher energy costs, which will mean hiring fewer people, laying off people, passing on the cost to others.

That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says an aggressive policy targeting coal-fired powerplants will lead to less disposable income for families and thousands of jobs lost. So families will have less disposable income and thousands of jobs will be lost.

We just learned last week that our economy shrank by 1 percent in the last quarter. The U.S. economy shrank. This is the first time in years the economy actually shrank by 1 percent in the last quarter. It is the first time it has happened, actually, since 2011. Our labor force participation rate is at the same level it was when Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States. So now the Obama administration wants to put more Americans out of work.

The action they are taking today is the height of irresponsibility and it is tone-deaf leadership. The Obama administration is going to try to defend their extreme regulations by saying, once again, these changes will help save lives and keep families healthy. The fact is they are totally ignoring the undeniable fact that when Americans lose their jobs, their health and the health of their children suffer.

There is an enormous public health threat from high unemployment, specifically chronic high unemployment. It increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illness, and premature death. It hurts children's health and the well-being of families. It influences mental illness, suicide, alcohol abuse, spouse abuse. It is an important risk factor in stroke and high blood pressure and heart disease--major things that impact a family, raise the cost of care. I saw it in my days of medical training in medical practice, and the White House knows it too.

One might say: How does the White House know? The New York Times actually ran an article on this in November of 2011--November 17, to be exact. The headline of the article was ``Policy and Politics Collide as Obama Enters Campaign Mode.'' ``Policy and Politics Collide as Obama Enters Campaign Mode.'' The article says a meeting occurred in the White House between the American Lung Association and then-White House Chief of Staff William Daley, and the meeting was about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ozone regulations.

In that White House meeting, White House Chief of Staff Daley asked a simple question when confronted with the argument that additional Clean Air Act regulations would improve public health. Daley asked: ``What are the health impacts of unemployment?'' Well, I have just gone over them with you, Mr. President. Those are the health impacts of unemployment. So the White House knows about it--totally aware about it.

When the Environmental Protection Agency announced these new rules today, the President himself was reportedly talking off camera--a conference call--on the phone with the

American Lung Association. Someone in that room should be talking about the disastrous public health effects of the unemployment that these rules are causing. The fact is that more regulation from Washington is not what America needs right now.

States already have flexibility in how they approach environmental stewardship, and many of them have come up with creative solutions. Last month the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses issued a report called ``Washington Gets it Wrong--States Get it Right.'' The report showed how regulations imposed by Washington are undermining-- undermining--the work being done at the State level to manage our lands, to manage our natural resources, and to protect our air and our water. It gave success stories--success stories--where the work being done by States is more reasonable, more effective, and less heavyhanded than the rules ordered by Washington.

America does not need Washington to pay lip service to flexibility while mandating huge price increases in energy. America wants Washington to stop the overreaching regulations and mandates and to actually allow the States to get it right. Thousands of Americans have already lost their jobs because of Washington's expensive and excessive regulations. Now the President is putting more jobs on the chopping block. That is why I have written legislation that would stop President Obama's massive increase to the Nation's electric bill. I offered this as an amendment last fall. Democrats in the Senate blocked it. I plan to offer it again and to keep making the point that the President should not have the power, the authority to impose these burdens on the American economy and on American families.

My amendment blocks the issuance of new carbon standards for new and existing powerplants. It would actually require the approval of Congress--can you imagine that, the approval of Congress, the elected representatives of the people--require the approval of Congress for regulations that increase Americans' energy bills, such as new rules proposed by the Obama administration today.

Congress should act on an affordable energy plan, but these kinds of decisions should be for Congress to make, not for the President to make on his own. That is true whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

We all know we need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can. It is critically important though that we do this without hurting our economy--a struggling economy, an economy where people continue to sacrifice--and do this in ways that do not cost hundreds of thousands of middle-class families their jobs.

We should look to States that have come up with ways to balance our energy needs, the health of our economy, and our environment.

President Obama is taking the wrong approach. These new regulations are going to hurt our economy. It is an economy that is already shrinking. It is astonishing; our economy is shrinking, and it is because of the President's other failed policies.

The policies introduced today will hurt middle-class families who are struggling to find work or to keep the jobs they have now. They will harm the health of many Americans. The President needs to change course. If he will not do it on his own, Congress must do it for him.

So, once again, today we see the headline: ``Obama Lets EPA Do His Dirty Work.'' ``The president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack.'' Instead, he is hiding. The President today is hiding. If this is something the President was proud of, he should have been at the White House in the Rose Garden in front of the cameras making an announcement, not asking his EPA Administrator to make it so he could be on a conference call because he was ashamed to show his face to the American people because of the impact these regulations are going to have on families all across America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Madam President, I come to the floor after having just heard my friend and colleague from Connecticut talk about the health care law. As a doctor, I am always happy to hear about people who are getting better care. My concern is that there are so many people across this country who have been hurt as a result of this health care law that I feel compelled to speak about so many of the side effects of the President's health care law and families who are seeing the government waste massive amounts of money that is not going for care. It is not helping people actually get better. It is not giving them the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, which is what the President promised when he said premiums would drop by $2,500.

I heard the President, as well as my colleague here today, say that this law will help keep people out of emergency rooms and they will go to primary care doctors instead. So I feel compelled to come to the floor to share with my colleagues a study that just came out on Wednesday, and perhaps some Members of the Senate who weren't aware of it will be made aware that the emergency room visits actually have been going up, not down, despite the law. This was the headline in the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday, May 21: ``ER Visits Rise Despite Law. Health Act Isn't Cutting Volume.''

I will point out a couple of things mentioned in this article. It starts off:

Early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have become

busier since the Affordable Care Act expanded insurance

coverage this year, despite the law's goal of reducing

unnecessary care in ERs.

My colleague said emergency rooms aren't going to be needed as much. Well, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in ERs, what we see is an expensive side effect of the President's health care law.

It goes on to say:

Democrats who designed the 2010 health law hoped it would

do the opposite. They wanted to give the uninsured better

access to primary-care doctors who could treat routine

ailments and prevent chronic diseases, with the intent of

keeping patients out of the ER. The median ER charge was more

than $1,200 for the most frequent outpatient diagnoses in a

study of over 8,000 ER visits in the years 2006-08, said a

2013 report funded in part by the National Institutes of

Health.

This is a report by the NIH.

Instead, the ER doctor group's research and several other

recent studies suggest that people who gain private insurance

are more likely to seek emergency care.

Not more likely to go to a family physician, not more likely to go to their own internist or pediatrician; more likely to go to the emergency room--the most expensive place for care--despite what the President told the American people.

Among the reasons is that a shortage of primary-care

providers in some regions has made it difficult for patients

to get appointments.

So why is there a shortage? Well, if the President's health care law actually focused on training physicians, putting money into educating and training more providers, instead of putting all of this money into hiring IRS agents to examine Americans' tax returns to make sure they check the box that says they have insurance and can provide proof of that, perhaps we wouldn't have these problems. But now we are seeing a very expensive side effect of the President's health care law.

While we can celebrate people who are helped by the law, there are so many people being hurt by the law in every State around this great country. We heard about a family from Connecticut who has benefited from the law. There are many who have been hurt.

There is a couple in Sharon, CT, according to NBC Connecticut. They were dropped, according to the headline, from their health care plan. It says:

A Sharon couple says they are running out of options after

being dropped from their ObamaCare insurance plan. John and

Dawn DiMarco signed up for an Affordable Care Act plan

through the state health insurance exchange during open

enrollment. They received their insurance card and were

covered but their bill was thousands of dollars more than

advertised.

What could happen there?

It says:

They spent weeks going back and forth with various State

agencies and the insurance company to try to get answers.

This is dated May 13 of this year.

Then, this month, their carrier, Anthem BlueCross

BlueShield, sent them a cancellation notice. The DiMarcos

have been so frustrated with trying to get answers that they

posted a sign outside their home that reads--

This is in Connecticut--

``We have no insurance because Access Health has a computer

glitch.''

It's stressful, says Mr. DiMarco. It's overwhelming.

So why did this happen?

Well, NBC Connecticut contacted Access Health Connecticut, and they told them that it had to do with a computer issue with a vendor, and when this gentleman went back to change information during the enrollment process, a new form was sent to the insurance company, but that form didn't include the couple's subsidy. So the form paperwork was wrong.

How could this happen? Is it just this one DiMarco couple whom this has

happened to in Connecticut? Not according to a front-page story in the Washington Post the other day. The headline is ``Federal health-care subsidies may be too high or too low for more than 1 Million Americans''--paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health plans, and the government has been unable so far to fix the errors.

The President of the United States goes on TV and says to the Democrats: Forcefully defend and be proud.

Who in America can be proud of the mess the President and his administration have made of the Web site and this health care bill? Once again, we see, as the Washington Post points out, important aspects of the Web site remain defective. They cannot fix this. Actually, I am not even sure how hard they are trying. People have been sending in paperwork. They are expecting, perhaps, by the end of the summer to be able to address the problem that there are 1 million Americans whose Federal health care subsidies may be either too high or too low.

``Forcefully defend and be proud.'' Where are they? Where are these defenders? It is sad because the idea is this is to actually help people get care. What people have gotten is headaches and heartaches and one problem after another.

It is also interesting, as a doctor who has been very involved with preventive care and working on early detection of problems and as somebody who has been the medical director of the Wyoming health fairs--I think it is important to screen people for problems. It is interesting. The New York Times even reported in an article written on April 30 on the problem with the health care law that it favors screening over diagnosis. So here is one of the issues that come into play.

My wife is a breast cancer survivor. She has been through three operations, chemotherapy twice, radiation, the whole thing. She is now cancer free. We are delighted. So I think screening tests are important. But this is the problem with this law that I believe very few Democrats read--very few of the people who voted for it read. I believe that about Members of the House and Members of the Senate. I read it cover to cover, but I believe many Members who voted for it never read it.

They say: Diagnosis is what we offer to those who have no signs or symptoms of disease. Because diagnosis isn't prevention, it is subject to deductibles and copays.

So if somebody actually has a diagnosis of something, there are deductibles and copays, but if it is just a screening test, no signs or symptoms, then it is covered.

The New York Times goes on:

In other words: A woman over 40 can have a free screening

mammogram.

She shows up and says: I want a free screening mammogram. But if she notices a breast lump and goes to her doctor to have it evaluated, well, then it is not a screening mammogram. Then it is not a free test. So she will pay for the diagnostic mammogram that costs $300.

This goes on:

So the woman at lower risk for cancer--the one with no

signs or symptoms of the disease--has an incentive to be

tested, while the woman at higher risk--the one with the

lump--faces a disincentive.

So she goes to the doctor. This goes on and says that the problem is they are now pressuring doctors to fraudulently change the paperwork so it complies with the screening test and not a diagnostic test. Doctors don't want to do that because they want to be honest. Yet the incentives set up in this program are to discourage the woman who finds a lump from actually going in to have the test, while encouraging somebody off the street to go in and have a similar test. It is a great concern.

So when I see a colleague come to the floor to say that the health care law, in his opinion, works--I will tell my colleagues, this is an Associated Press story that says: ``Consumers frustrated by new health plans as they find their doctors are not included.'' They can't go to their doctor.

This is a story out of California. Michelle Pool is one of those customers. Before enrolling in a new health plan on California's exchange, she checked whether her longtime primary care doctor was covered. This woman, Michelle Pool--60 years of age, a diabetic; she has had back surgery and a hip replacement--purchased the plan only to find that the insurer was mistaken; the doctor wasn't included. So her $352-a-month gold plan, she said, was cheaper than what she had paid under her husband's insurance and it seemed like a good deal because of her numerous preexisting conditions.

I understand preexisting conditions as the husband of a woman who has been through breast cancer treatment. This goes on to say:

But after her insurance card came in the mail, the Vista,

California resident learned her doctor wasn't taking her new

insurance.

It goes on to say, quoting this woman:

``It's not fun when you've had a doctor for years and years

that you can confide in and he knows you,'' Pool said. ``I'm

extremely discouraged. I'm stuck.''

This is an American who is stuck and hurt by the health care law. It goes on to say:

The dilemma undercuts President Obama's--

This is an Associated Press article--

The dilemma undercuts President Obama's 2009 pledge that:

``If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your

doctor, period.''

The President said: ``period.'' But one of the side effects of the President's health care law is that people are continuing to lose their doctors.

It goes on to say:

Consumer frustration over losing doctors comes as the Obama

administration is still celebrating a victory with more than

8 million enrollees in its first year.

There are astronomical concerns that people across the country are expressing about this health care law. And yet--and yet--we see one Member of the other party coming to the floor and saying: Oh, it is working.

The American people do not believe it is.

People get insurance through work. The laws are interesting. This is a story from Ohio about the cost because that is what really people were concerned about when we wanted to do health care reform; it was to say let's get the cost down. The President promised families would see a $2,500 reduction in the cost of their insurance policies in a year once all of this was implemented. But one of the side effects is actually higher premiums. This article talks about a man who owns a popular brew pub in Cleveland. He has fewer than 50 full-time employees. So he is classified under the health care law as a small business, which means he does not actually have to provide health insurance to his employees. But he has been doing so. He has been doing so since he opened this pub a number of years ago, and he has done it in spite of some fairly significant jumps in the cost of the insurance.

He said: ``They just seemed to keep going up every year.''

He opened this pub in 2009. One year he got an increase of 38 percent; another it was 11 percent.

The article says: ``This year, under the Affordable Care Act, he saw another hike--this one about 20 percent.'' So he is seeing higher premiums. He said: ``It just seems odd that we get such a drastic price increase when nothing has really changed with us as far as our employees and health issues.''

Most of the workers at [his place] are in their 20s and

30s. They are healthy, enthusiastic about their jobs. . . .

They like the fact that they get insurance, but they are getting priced out of the market. That is the concern about this: the health care law is making premiums go up.

From today, Thursday, May 22, The Hill newspaper, right here in Washington, DC: ``Premium hike drumbeat before Nov. Election Day.''

People continue to be shocked by the increases in the cost of their insurance, and they are going to go up again across the country. There are a number of reasons for that. We have seen it in North Carolina, where I expect this is going to be discussed and debated over the next months.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. . . .

This comes from the Herald-Sun in North Carolina: ObamaCare enrollees older, sicker than insurer forecast--older and sicker than what the President told--actually it was not the President; it was Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, when she described what she

thought success would look like in terms of the number of young healthy people who would sign up. It says:

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina officials

said--

This is dated May 8--

. . . that they found that the people who enrolled in the

individual Affordable Care Act plans it sold on the online

health exchanges were older and sicker than expected.

That may mean higher rates--

Higher premiums--

for Affordable Care Act plans in the future. . . .

The insurer's vice president of health policy said: ``[It's] a concern when we think about future premiums.''

They have great concerns about the amount things are going to go up. That is not what people want. People wanted affordable care. They wanted access to care. They wanted to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. What they see is waste--money not going to help people get care, but money being wasted.

I found it interesting coming out of Missouri, a story about how an ObamaCare contractor pays employees to spend their days doing nothing-- doing nothing--paying their employees to do nothing.

``A billion dollar government contract involving hundreds

of local workers at an ObamaCare processing center. . . . ''

So these are people hired by the government or a contractor to work at an ObamaCare processing center--hundreds of local workers.

``But now employees on the inside are stepping forward,

asking, Is this why we're broke? Some of them claim to spend

most of their day doing nothing,''. . . .

This is reported in St. Louis.

The contractor is called Serco and local reporters

discovered that, despite there not being any work to be done,

the government contractor is still hiring.

Why would they be hiring? Because they get a percent of the action. That is why they are hiring. They are hiring people to not do anything, to take the paycheck. The article continues:

``The company is still hiring,'' says a local reporter. ``A

current employee wonders why. . . . After providing proof of

employment, this . . . employee agreed to speak through the

phone with their voice altered. The employee says hundreds of

employees spend much of the day staring at computer screens,

with little or no work to do.''

The reporter asks the employee, ``Are there some days where

a data entry person may not process a single application?''

Not a single application? The person who works there said: ``There are weeks''--weeks--``when a data entry person would not process an application.''

The anonymous employee says the contract gets paid by the

federal government per employee hired.

That is why they are continuing to hire--because the company gets paid by the Federal Government per employee hired, which is why it is in their interest to have a bunch of employees sitting around all day doing nothing.

So I have to feel an obligation, when I hear a statement on the floor being made that says: Well, a lot fewer people are going to go to the emergency room; it is going to save money--that has not happened. Studies from emergency room doctors, work from the NIH said it is not happening. The exact opposite has happened--a side effect of the health care law, when we see that people are not able to keep their doctors, in spite of the President promising people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I feel compelled to come to the floor and share that story with those of us who care about care for patients, who care about finding a way to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. That is what people want. They know what they want. They want access to care. They want affordable care. They want care, they want choices, and they want quality care.

I believe this health care law is turning out to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the doctors, the nurses, the paramedics, the nurse practitioners--who take care of those patients, and terrible for the taxpayers when we hear stories like this one out of Missouri, which says the employees are being paid to sit around and do nothing, when we hear there are a million people who are just waiting to try to get the government to correct something that should have been fixed in the beginning, when the President, 4 days before the Web site opened up in October, said: easier to use than Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone; keep your doctor if you like your doctor--there was so much misleading of the American public--and then when he says stand and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law.

I think it is very hard to defend what the President and the Democrats have forced down the throats of the American public, and it is very hard to be proud of the kind of abuse and waste in a system that--whatever the intentions--has proven to the American public to be something they do not want, that they want to have replaced with an opportunity to have access, affordability, choice, and quality. By adopting proposals in a step-by-step fashion that Republicans have been promoting--to deal with those sorts of things of access, affordability, choice, and quality--we can try to ultimately get the American public what they need and what they asked for in the beginning: the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2013 Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report. I agree with my colleagues who have spoken about this and who believe that passing this conference report is important for our communities. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as one of the members of the conference committee that came out with this report, I believe the agreement we have today addresses the issues facing the Army Corps of Engineers and facing our country.

We have problems in this country with aging infrastructure, we have problems with a lack of transparency, and we have problems with fiscal accountability--all of which impact public health, public safety, as well as the environmental welfare of our communities. As a conferee, I and my staff have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the building, House and Senate, to create a bipartisan product to address these real concerns. We may have our differences on some key issues, but the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting our States. It is about protecting our constituents. It is not about partisan politics.

For example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my home State of Wyoming. Predicting floods and being able and better prepared for them is a major component in keeping Wyoming and other western communities safe. That is why we have successfully included language in this bill for the authorization of the Upper Missouri Basin flood and drought monitoring. This program will restore the stream gauges and the snowpack monitors through the Upper Missouri Basin at all elevations. These gauges are used to monitor snow depth and soil moisture to help inform agencies such as the Corps of Engineers as to potential flooding as well as drought in the future. This type of monitoring will help protect communities and will save lives.

We also included language in this bill for technical assistance to help rural communities comply with environmental regulations. Rural communities often don't have the expertise or the funding to make important upgrades to their water systems. Dedicated professionals, such as the folks at the Wyoming Rural Water Association, use this funding to go into those communities and provide the critical assistance these people need.

We also secured an agreement that establishes a 5-year pilot program known as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This program will allow the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide loans and loan guarantees for flood control, for community water systems, for aging water distribution facilities, and for wastewater infrastructure projects. It also includes language that makes tribes eligible for the loans.

As I mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed with the Army Corps of Engineers. That is why we have included language in the conference report to create an Army Corps project deauthorization process. Under this process, the Army Corps would identify projects for deauthorization based on established criteria. Then, after taking public input, they would submit those projects as a single package for an up-or-down vote in the Congress.

Many of these projects are on the books and have been on the books for extended periods of time, and they authorize the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars. Yet these are projects that are going nowhere. Under this conference report, the Corps would have to propose a list of the projects to cut. The list would total $18 billion and would be sent to Congress for this up-or-down vote. And $18 billion is more than enough to offset the entire total authorization of this piece of legislation.

It truly is time for the Corps of Engineers and for Congress to clean the books, cut the waste, and bring fiscal responsibility to this WRDA process.

I wish to thank my colleagues, including Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and former Senator and subcommittee ranking member Max Baucus for the bipartisan process under which this bill was considered.

The conference report is not perfect, but I believe we have achieved a product that is substantive, effective, and in the public interests. It is a product that will save lives, maintain the flow of commerce, and protect communities for years to come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this conference report.

Once again, I thank the Presiding Officer and my committee colleagues for their willingness to work together on this bill.

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

Mr. President, on June 6, 2014, the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper will dedicate its new Orthopedic, Spine and Surgery Center to an American patriot, Jerry Behrens, M.D.

For years, patients in Wyoming have known Jerry to be a compassionate, thorough, and trusted surgeon. He has cared for thousands of patients in Casper and around the State. What they may not know is that his character was shaped by the courage and determination he displayed half a world away in Vietnam.

Dr. Behrens always knew he wanted to help others. For that reason, he completed his medical degree and internship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Although he was excited about beginning a family and a new career, he felt a calling to serve a higher cause. It was this desire which pushed him to volunteer as a medical doctor in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam Conflict.

Attached to the 3rd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, Dr. Behrens performed surgery in very dangerous and difficult conditions. Jerry was assigned to Delta Med, a forward casualty receiving facility in Dong Ha. Soldiers with fragment wounds, lost limbs, and severe blood loss were triaged, treated, and transported to hospital ships for additional care. It was not unusual for incoming rounds of fire to interrupt surgeries. Yet amidst the chaos and confusion, Jerry kept a level head and performed his duties with precision and professionalism.

Jerry later became the battalion surgeon for the Rockpile, Ca Lu and Khe Sanh Combat Bases. During this time, his courage was tested when his convoy was ambushed as they were making their way to Ca Lu. Of the 200 men in his unit, 70 were wounded, and 18 were killed. Jerry stabilized the injured while waiting for reinforcements. It was a harrowing experience, but it would not be the last time he risked his life to serve his battalion. Just a month later, his bunker at the Rockpile took a direct hit. Though he was uninjured, ten of his corpsmen were lost. Jerry was ultimately awarded the Bronze Star Medal with a V for Valor for his bravery and devotion to duty.

Upon the completion of his distinguished service to our Nation, Jerry returned home and completed his orthopedic residency at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was Wyoming's great fortune that Jerry decided to move his family to Casper to begin his orthopedic practice. I was lucky enough to be invited to join Jerry in his growing practice in Casper, WY, where his family and career thrived.

In 1991, Jerry's son Michael deployed with the U.S. Marine Corps as part of Operation Desert Storm. Jerry once again showed his patriotism and desire to serve. He contacted Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and asked to be reactivated so he could provide medical attention to Americans serving overseas. Jerry was commissioned as a lieutenant commander in January 1991, after a 4-day whirlwind of paperwork, physicals, and phone calls. He put his practice aside to once again wear the uniform. He was deployed within 3 weeks to Saudi Arabia and went through the breech with the Marines into Kuwait.

Certainly his experiences, both in Vietnam and Desert Storm, shaped his character--and his career. As a fellow in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and a board certified physician, he has devoted his life to providing high quality care and service to his patients. With every surgery he performs, he demonstrates integrity and precision. In addition to his contributions to the medical community, Jerry also volunteers his free time to serve as a teacher, mentor, and friend to our servicemen and women. He is actively involved with veterans' organizations around the country and continues to stay in touch with the Marines who served with him in Desert Storm.

Jerry is particularly proud of his work with Semper Fi Odyssey. This is a week-long transition assistance program which helps prepare individuals for life after military service. Participants work in teams and learn valuable skills that help them achieve their personal and professional goals. Jerry has served as a team leader for Semper Fi Odyssey on eight separate occasions and continues to mentor the former servicemembers he met through this work. Needless to say, Jerry is a positive force within the community and we are fortunate for his remarkable contributions.

After practicing in Casper for 41 years, the community is honoring this patriot by unveiling the Jerry Behrens, M.D. Orthopedic, Spine, and Surgery Center at the Wyoming Medical Center. Hundreds will gather to pay their respects to this accomplished surgeon. At his side will be his wife Mary, his children Kelly, Mike, and Ingrid, and his two grandchildren Erik and Jasper. Bobbi and I will be honored to stand with him on this special occasion. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Jerry Behrens and thanking him for a life and career devoted to service and the care of others.

Mr. President, this week President Obama told a group of campaign donors that people who still

talk about his health care law are ``not speaking to the real concerns that people have.'' The President still does not seem to understand that Americans do have real concerns about his health care law. They are not partisan concerns, they are practical concerns. The reason Americans are worried is because the law directly impacts their personal lives, their personal health, and their personal pocketbooks.

That is why I have come to the floor week after week to talk about some of the alarming side effects of the President's health care law, and there are many alarming side effects related to the law that people are seeing and dealing with in their everyday lives. I have talked about how this law has increased premiums, how it has cut paychecks for many families, how week after week more people are realizing that they are suffering as a result of the law. They are not helped by the law but are suffering as victims of the President's law.

Today I wish to talk about another costly side effect of the law: the massive amount of taxpayer dollars that continues to be wasted under the law. For example, KMOV, a television station in St. Louis, recently reported about a call center in Missouri that processes paper applications for insurance in the State exchanges. Remember, the applications were supposed to be handled on a Web site, so they should not need a call center handling very many paper applications, but it doesn't seem to matter.

The company got a contract for $1.2 billion. According to the report, there are 1,800 employees. What are these people doing who are taking all of this money? It turns out a lot of them are not doing very much. They are being paid with hard-earned taxpayer dollars and they are not doing very much. One employee said, ``There are some weeks that a data entry person would not process an application''--weeks, and not a single application. They are just sitting there and looking at their computers. The report says some of them are playing Pictionary or 20 Questions and collecting paychecks funded by the taxpayers. Another former employee told the Associated Press: ``It was like stealing money from people.'' It was like stealing money from people.

It is not just happening in Missouri. Another TV station, KOLR, found a call center run by the same company--this one is in Arkansas--and reported that the same thing that is happening in St. Louis, MO, is happening in Arkansas. One employee told the station that he has been there 6 months--6 months and getting paid for full-time work--and has processed a total of 40 applications.

To make matters worse, we have learned of another clear way Washington is wasting taxpayer dollars while implementing the law. Over the weekend the Washington Post reported that Federal health care subsidies may be too high or to low for 1 million people. The headline says: ``Health payouts may be wrong. Subsidies too high or [too] low for 1 million. Government flags errors but can't fix them yet.'' Incredible incompetence on the part of this administration. There is mismanagement like people have never seen before in this country.

The Post reported:

The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of

people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve.

These are the subsidies some people get to help pay for their insurance in the government exchanges. It turns out that the computer system Washington built to make sure it gave the right subsidies--well, guess what. It doesn't work.

When the healthcare.gov Web site crashed last fall, the Obama administration scrambled to patch and duct tape it back together. But according to the article, behind the scenes, important aspects of the Web site remain defective or unfinished.

The article goes on:

The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more

than 1 million Americans in the new federal insurance

marketplace and has been unable so far to fix the errors,

according to internal documents and three people familiar

with the situation.

The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of

people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve.

Apparently the government can't fix it and the Web site can't be fixed. So what do they do? These people are sending in information, and, according to this article, ``piles of unprocessed `proof' documents are sitting in a federal contractor's Kentucky office, and the government continues to pay insurance subsidies that may be too generous . . .''

The inability to make certain the government is paying

correct subsidies is a legacy of computer troubles that

crippled last fall's launch of the Obama health care law.

So again we see more waste of taxpayer dollars and more reasons for Americans to have very real concerns about the law.

Just this past week the President of the United States told donors: Oh, not speaking to the real concerns that people have.

The President of the United States is wrong. The American people have real concerns about these components of the health care law. President Obama said to the Democrats in this very body: Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. I want to see one of the Democrats stand and defend what I have just talked about and be proud of what I just talked about. The President says you should, so where are you right now? Not one of them is here to make that defense or to stand proud about this law.

It is hard to imagine that my colleagues can possibly be proud of a law that pays people to do nothing all day long. Can they possibly be proud of a law that awards large subsidies for people who don't qualify for them? Are the Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that continue to be wasted every day?

There is no end in sight and there is no effort to stop this. After all, how does that provide a fair shot for everyone? Isn't that what the promises of the President are? He said: I want a fair shot for everyone. How does all of this actually help with this wasted money? How does that help anybody get better health care? Millions and millions of dollars are being wasted to pay people to sit around and play computer games. Millions more are on Web sites designed in States that have been basically called broken, dysfunctional, crippled--you name it, they are not working.

The FBI is doing an investigation about some of these reports. How does that give anybody better health care--all these wasted taxpayer dollars.

The people know what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted better access to quality, affordable care. Let's think about what people want with health care reform. They want access, they want affordable care, they want choices--which they have been denied under this President's health care law--and they want quality. That is the kind of fair shot they wanted, but it is not what they got from the President's health care law.

Republicans have offered a patient-centered approach that would solve the biggest problems families face, such as access to care, cost of care, quality of care, and choice. That means ideas such as allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy insurance more cheaply for their employees. That gives small businesses and the employees working there a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that actually works for them and their families, not what President Obama says is best for them. If I had to say who has the best chance of knowing what is best for a family, I would say it is likely the family and not President Obama and the Democrats who passed this law. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for them and best for their families.

These are just a couple of the solutions Republicans have offered to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot--health care reform that gives patients the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without the ongoing harmful, expensive side effects we are seeing every day with the President's health care law.

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

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today, as my colleague from Indiana has, because the same things he is hearing about at home in Indiana--stories from real people and how their lives have been impacted by the health care law--are stories I am hearing at home every weekend in Wyoming.

I think it is astonishing that the majority leader would come to the floor of the Senate and say these stories we are coming to the floor with are made up, he said, out of whole cloth. These are real people in our communities who have been impacted by the health care law in ways that have been very detrimental to their lives, their livelihood. People have had their hours cut. Their take-home pay is less. They are finding they are having to pay a lot more for insurance. A lot of times it is insurance they don't really want or need or will ever use but the President says they have to buy. They have lost policies that have worked well for them.

I got a recent email from a gentleman, a family in Powell, WY, a community in Park County. He writes: Now that ObamaCare has been deemed to be the most successful government program of all time, let me tell you what it has done for retired middle-class Wyoming citizens like myself.

Of course, he said he was not serious when he said ``the most successful government program of all time.'' He probably heard the President talking about it. He probably heard the President of the United States tell Democrats who voted for this health care law to forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. I haven't heard Members who voted for this actually come to the floor to any degree to forcefully defend and be proud of the law because they know the side effects of the law have been devastating--devastating to families, devastating to people and their paychecks, and devastating to health care in this country.

So back to what my constituent from Powell, WY, said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 a month.

The President said: Oh, no, premiums will drop by $2,500 a year.

This gentleman said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 per month, scheduled to go to at least $2,000 or more per month in July--in parentheses, ``unbelievable.''

He then says: Middle-class citizens like my wife and myself, not qualifying for ObamaCare subsidies, having to consider becoming lawbreakers by forgoing health insurance for ourselves or at least one of us--in parentheses, ``probably myself because I am the healthier of the two''--and paying the fine.

He then said: If we do No. 2 above--about disobeying the law and paying the fine--we will have to look into seeking cheaper care outside the United States, probably Mexico, for serious problems.

Is that what the President of the United States intended, to have people seek care in Mexico because they can't afford the Obama health care law and the mandates and all of the insurance that they don't need, don't want, won't use, and can't afford? It is not what the President promised the American people. He said if they like what they have they can keep it. But, of course, that was deemed the lie of the year.

So I guess that is how the American people view the President of the United States now and can't really consider his comments to be credible. So when he says forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law, I think the American people realize that the President has sold the law to them under false promises and the Democrats are clearly not standing up and defending what they know is hurting their constituents. The President is in his bubble, and he hears only what he wants to hear. But I think Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, who go home and listen to people, know these stories are true, unlike what the majority leader says--that they are just made up.

The gentleman goes on to say: I could look into residence in another State to see if health care insurance is available cheaper. I don't know if it is or not, but I understand that Wyoming has the highest or near highest health insurance premiums.

Then he ends by saying: Is this what Obama and the Federal Government consider fair?

The President goes on TV and says that everybody ought to have a fair shot. Is this what the President of the United States considers fair? Is this what he means by a fair shot? People all across the country are going to be asking themselves that question as they take a look at the impact of this health care law on their own lives, their own families, the ability to keep their doctors. We know many people have lost the doctor they like in the sense that they can't go to that doctor. They know they can't go to the same hospital. We know many were not able to keep the insurance they had. We know many have had hours cut.

In an effort to try to help people who didn't have insurance, I think the President of the United States and Democrats should not have hurt so many individuals across the country, so many people who already had insurance. There may be people who are newly insured, but there are also people who are newly uninsured, and it is because of the President's health care law. Are there side effects? You better believe it. They are harmful. They are costly. Many families have been devastated by the health care law.

I have another letter from a family in Lingle, WY. This is somebody who knows I am a doctor, knows my record of treating patients around Wyoming and working with families all across the State. She said: I know you're interested in the number of people who are uninsured after the rollout of the ACA. She said: My husband and I started investigating the ACA in October. The Presiding Officer will remember they opened the exchanges in October. The President, right before that, said it was going to be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill. She said: So we started investigating in October, and we were finally able to establish an account in March.

That is what the American people think about the capability of this government and this administration. You start working on something in October, and you finally establish an account in March because of the incompetence of a bureaucracy and an administration that says one thing, does another, promises something, and delivers something very different.

She said: We found that our premiums would be one-third of our annual income--one-third of our annual income--with a $6,000 copay and a $12,000 deductible.

Those are the numbers--one-third of their annual income, a $6,000 copay, a $12,000 deductible--and the majority leader comes to the floor and says we are making this stuff up. These are letters from our constituents, people who live in our States, people whom we see on weekends when we go home.

She goes on to say: We have been uninsured for 7 years due to the costs, which we are told is due to our age, even though we are in good health. So as of today we are still uninsured.

So they started in October, finally established an account in March, and as of the date this was written in April, they were still uninsured.

She said: We don't have any idea what will happen if one of us gets sick or has an accident. How will we pay the bills?

Then she finishes by saying: Keep fighting for the people of Wyoming. As a doctor, you know what a precarious position we are in.

I wish the President of the United States and the majority leader would realize what a precarious position they have placed the American public in--an American public who knew what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is not what they got. They got more mandates, more expensive care, higher deductibles, higher copays. Many people had their policies canceled.

We know with the 30-hour work rule communities are cutting the hours of workers so their take-home pay goes down. We are not talking about businesses here, although it is happening in the business world as well. It is also happening in communities--school districts that are saying: Well, we are going to have to cut the hours of substitute teachers, we are going to have

to cut the hours of the school bus drivers, of the coaches, of a number of part-time workers. Why? Because of the health care law.

These are side effects of the law. They are harmful. They are expensive. They have an impact on people's lives to a point that I think the President wants to ignore because the President is hoping people on his side of the aisle will forcefully defend and be proud of a law that there is little to be proud of that really is not able to be defended because the implications of the side effects have been devastating to many, and especially to Americans who have gotten their insurance canceled and find their only choice is more expensive insurance, higher copays, and higher deductibles. But for families all across the country, when a mother finds she cannot take her child to that pediatrician--the one who has known that child since the baby was born--now, because of the health care law, she cannot take her child to that pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their community; they have to drive distances, instead, because of the health care law, which was intended to help people but has ended up hurting, in my opinion, more people than it has helped.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.