Floor Statements

I ask for the nays and yeas.

Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to address remarks made by the majority leader. Just yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and said the Republicans were ``going quiet'' on health care. Senator Reid said ObamaCare is no longer high on the Republicans' radar screen. Yesterday I said that it was certainly still very high on my radar screen and that Republicans have every intention of continuing to focus on the Democrats' health care law and all of its harmful side effects.

Americans all across the country have been feeling those damaging side effects of the President's health care law, and the side effects are getting worse. Hard-working middle-class families who didn't want this health care law in the first place are facing higher premiums. They are facing smaller paychecks. They are facing fewer jobs, fewer doctors, and many other problems as a result specifically of the President's health care law.

Today I want to talk about another side effect of the law; that is, the millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars that have been absolutely wasted by bureaucrats who set up State health insurance exchanges that have failed. Under the health care law, States could choose to set up their own exchange or to use the Federal exchange. States got Federal grants to help plan which one they would do. If a State decided to set up its own exchange, it got even more money from Washington to cover the costs.

So how much money are we talking about? Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Government has awarded grants of over $7.4 billion as of this March.

People all across the country know the Federal exchange was an absolute train wreck when it was launched. In one State after another, the State exchanges also have been collapsing and costing taxpayers a fortune. Now some of those States have absolutely given up. They have decided they want to scrap their own systems and go into the Federal exchange after all--an option they had at first, but they decided to go first to the State exchange and now it has failed. What they have done is they have spent a lot of taxpayer money--money Washington sent to them. Where is the money? The money is gone. Their system doesn't work, and now what they want to do is have a fresh start.

President Obama says Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I want to see where the people are now coming to the floor to forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law.

I ask the President--is he proud that these ObamaCare exchanges are failing all across the country? Are Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that we now know have been wasted? Democrats don't want to talk about the law's expensive side effects or about the Americans harmed by the law.

Republicans have been offering solutions. Today Senator Hatch and I are introducing legislation that would address these State failures and protect taxpayers. After all, that is what Americans want. They want accountability for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill, called the State Exchange Accountability Act, says that if the State got Federal money to set up its own exchange and later decided to give up and move back on to the Federal exchange, it would have to pay back the money. It is that simple. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for the mistakes of incompetent State bureaucrats who couldn't set up a working health care exchange. States would have 10 years to pay back the grants. They would have to pay them back in full. I know State budgets are tight, so they wouldn't have to come up with the whole amount all at once. They would pay back 10 percent of the total each year for the next 10 years. These States that walk away from their exchanges are conceding that they wasted the money they received, and it is only fair that these States should repay the American taxpayers.

The failure of these exchanges and the money squandered on them was a side effect of the health care law. Democrats told States they could set up these exchanges and Washington would pay the bill. So some States didn't really care what it cost. They didn't care if the work was being done well or even done at all. As far as they were concerned, don't worry, whether it works or not it is somebody else's money.

Well, this bill I am introducing today tells these State bureaucracies that it is time for them to care about the money they have wasted. This won't fix all of the harmful side effects the Democrats created with the health care law, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do.

If you want a sense of how big the problem is, look at an article that ran in Politico on Monday this week. The headline is ``Four States in a Fix Over Their Troubled Exchanges.'' The article talks about four State exchanges

that basically embraced ObamaCare: Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon. It says that these four State exchanges spent at least $474 million and ``are now in shambles.''

Look at it--Maryland, $118 million; Massachusetts, $57 million; Nevada, $51 million; for Oregon, $248 million of taxpayer money from around the country was sent to Oregon for programs that are now in shambles. So now some of these States want even more money to fix what has gone wrong in the first place.

According to Politico, Maryland spent $118 million to set up its own exchange, and State officials did such a bad job that they are now planning to scrap the whole thing and use software from Connecticut's exchange. Massachusetts spent $57 million. Politico called the program in Massachusetts ``fatally crippled.'' Nevada spent $51 million. Politico says salvaging that exchange ``would be a huge feat.'' Oregon spent $248 million to set up its own exchange. It was such a spectacular failure that CNBC ran a headline on May 5 stating ``FBI probing Oregon's ObamaCare exchange.'' The FBI is probing the exchange. The State plans to use the Federal exchange from now on, getting rid of their State exchange. That is the kind of double-dipping our bill goes after.

Why should Democrats in Washington, DC, be telling taxpayers across America that they have to pay for the failures of State officials in Massachusetts, Nevada, Maryland, Oregon, and other States that may find themselves in the same situation?

Democrats have said and the President continues to say that he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Are Americans from other States who have to pay higher taxes because of these failed exchanges getting a fair shot? Well, they are not.

Our bill will start to give a fair shot to Americans who don't want to pay twice to bail out incompetent State bureaucrats. It will give a fair shot to Americans who want to reclaim some of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

This is just one of many ideas Republicans have offered and will continue to offer to create a patient-centered approach to health care. The plans we have offered will solve the biggest problems families face, which is the cost of care and access to care, problems that seem to have been ignored when Democrats forced this law through Congress. That means measures that would allow small businesses to pull together in order to buy health insurance for employees. Small businesses deserve a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that works for them and their families--not what the government says is best for them but what they say is best for themselves and their families. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for themselves and their families. It means adequately funding State high- risk pools that help people get insurance--people who have disease, people who are sick--without raising the costs for healthier people. These are just a few of the solutions Republicans have offered and continue to offer to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot, health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without all of the harmful and expensive ObamaCare side effects.

Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to address remarks made by the majority leader. Just yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and said the Republicans were ``going quiet'' on health care. Senator Reid said ObamaCare is no longer high on the Republicans' radar screen. Yesterday I said that it was certainly still very high on my radar screen and that Republicans have every intention of continuing to focus on the Democrats' health care law and all of its harmful side effects.

Americans all across the country have been feeling those damaging side effects of the President's health care law, and the side effects are getting worse. Hard-working middle-class families who didn't want this health care law in the first place are facing higher premiums. They are facing smaller paychecks. They are facing fewer jobs, fewer doctors, and many other problems as a result specifically of the President's health care law.

Today I want to talk about another side effect of the law; that is, the millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars that have been absolutely wasted by bureaucrats who set up State health insurance exchanges that have failed. Under the health care law, States could choose to set up their own exchange or to use the Federal exchange. States got Federal grants to help plan which one they would do. If a State decided to set up its own exchange, it got even more money from Washington to cover the costs.

So how much money are we talking about? Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Government has awarded grants of over $7.4 billion as of this March.

People all across the country know the Federal exchange was an absolute train wreck when it was launched. In one State after another, the State exchanges also have been collapsing and costing taxpayers a fortune. Now some of those States have absolutely given up. They have decided they want to scrap their own systems and go into the Federal exchange after all--an option they had at first, but they decided to go first to the State exchange and now it has failed. What they have done is they have spent a lot of taxpayer money--money Washington sent to them. Where is the money? The money is gone. Their system doesn't work, and now what they want to do is have a fresh start.

President Obama says Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I want to see where the people are now coming to the floor to forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law.

I ask the President--is he proud that these ObamaCare exchanges are failing all across the country? Are Democrats who voted for this health care law ready to forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that we now know have been wasted? Democrats don't want to talk about the law's expensive side effects or about the Americans harmed by the law.

Republicans have been offering solutions. Today Senator Hatch and I are introducing legislation that would address these State failures and protect taxpayers. After all, that is what Americans want. They want accountability for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill, called the State Exchange Accountability Act, says that if the State got Federal money to set up its own exchange and later decided to give up and move back on to the Federal exchange, it would have to pay back the money. It is that simple. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for the mistakes of incompetent State bureaucrats who couldn't set up a working health care exchange. States would have 10 years to pay back the grants. They would have to pay them back in full. I know State budgets are tight, so they wouldn't have to come up with the whole amount all at once. They would pay back 10 percent of the total each year for the next 10 years. These States that walk away from their exchanges are conceding that they wasted the money they received, and it is only fair that these States should repay the American taxpayers.

The failure of these exchanges and the money squandered on them was a side effect of the health care law. Democrats told States they could set up these exchanges and Washington would pay the bill. So some States didn't really care what it cost. They didn't care if the work was being done well or even done at all. As far as they were concerned, don't worry, whether it works or not it is somebody else's money.

Well, this bill I am introducing today tells these State bureaucracies that it is time for them to care about the money they have wasted. This won't fix all of the harmful side effects the Democrats created with the health care law, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do.

If you want a sense of how big the problem is, look at an article that ran in Politico on Monday this week. The headline is ``Four States in a Fix Over Their Troubled Exchanges.'' The article talks about four State exchanges

that basically embraced ObamaCare: Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon. It says that these four State exchanges spent at least $474 million and ``are now in shambles.''

Look at it--Maryland, $118 million; Massachusetts, $57 million; Nevada, $51 million; for Oregon, $248 million of taxpayer money from around the country was sent to Oregon for programs that are now in shambles. So now some of these States want even more money to fix what has gone wrong in the first place.

According to Politico, Maryland spent $118 million to set up its own exchange, and State officials did such a bad job that they are now planning to scrap the whole thing and use software from Connecticut's exchange. Massachusetts spent $57 million. Politico called the program in Massachusetts ``fatally crippled.'' Nevada spent $51 million. Politico says salvaging that exchange ``would be a huge feat.'' Oregon spent $248 million to set up its own exchange. It was such a spectacular failure that CNBC ran a headline on May 5 stating ``FBI probing Oregon's ObamaCare exchange.'' The FBI is probing the exchange. The State plans to use the Federal exchange from now on, getting rid of their State exchange. That is the kind of double-dipping our bill goes after.

Why should Democrats in Washington, DC, be telling taxpayers across America that they have to pay for the failures of State officials in Massachusetts, Nevada, Maryland, Oregon, and other States that may find themselves in the same situation?

Democrats have said and the President continues to say that he wants everyone to have a fair shot. Are Americans from other States who have to pay higher taxes because of these failed exchanges getting a fair shot? Well, they are not.

Our bill will start to give a fair shot to Americans who don't want to pay twice to bail out incompetent State bureaucrats. It will give a fair shot to Americans who want to reclaim some of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

This is just one of many ideas Republicans have offered and will continue to offer to create a patient-centered approach to health care. The plans we have offered will solve the biggest problems families face, which is the cost of care and access to care, problems that seem to have been ignored when Democrats forced this law through Congress. That means measures that would allow small businesses to pull together in order to buy health insurance for employees. Small businesses deserve a fair shot. It means letting people shop for health insurance that works for them and their families--not what the government says is best for them but what they say is best for themselves and their families. People deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that is best for themselves and their families. It means adequately funding State high- risk pools that help people get insurance--people who have disease, people who are sick--without raising the costs for healthier people. These are just a few of the solutions Republicans have offered and continue to offer to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot, health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without all of the harmful and expensive ObamaCare side effects.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today having heard the majority leader open this morning's session by talking somewhat about the health care law. He was referring to a headline that said Republicans were going quiet on health care. He then went on to say that ObamaCare is no longer very high on their radar screen.

I will say, as a doctor and someone who goes home every weekend to Wyoming, this issue of people's health care--something very important to them--continues to be high on my screen and high on the radar screen of Americans all across the country because we are seeing all across the country that the President's promises have been broken. People can't keep what they had if they liked it. People are losing their doctors.

There are many ObamaCare side effects, and one doesn't have to go very far today to see on the front page of the New York Times this morning an article related to the President's promises. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital. But in this front-page article, the first paragraph says:

In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days,

one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health

plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and

hospitals in their network--or pay much more for the

privilege of going to any provider they want.

So the Senate majority leader may not want this to be a major issue in the minds of the American public, but it is because their health care is so personal.

Americans hate to see taxpayer dollars wasted, but they are seeing it all across the country.

I would note an article in Politico: ``474M for 4 failed Obamacare exchanges.'' Money completely wasted--taxpayer dollars--and didn't help patients needing care.

The other day, The Hill: Cover Oregon flops. ``FBI looking into Oregon's O-Care rollout.''

There are huge problems with waste.

There is another article about problems in Colorado and problems with their exchange, and yet the story out today--what happened with the exchange in Colorado? ``Outrage over raise for Colorado health exchange

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the health care law. I have visited with people in my home State of Wyoming and people from around the country who come to Washington, and many of them want to talk about the health care law and the side effects of the health care law. They want to talk about the health care law that the Democrats voted for unanimously in this body and Democrats on the other side of this building voted for overwhelmingly.

A little earlier today, one of my colleagues who is a supporter of the law came to the floor to say it is working and everything is great.

I am here to say it is not and to dispute some of the comments made by my colleague because I am hearing from people whose care has been affected. Their lives have been affected, the ability to keep their doctor has been affected, and the cost of their care and the cost of their insurance has gone up. Many have had their insurance canceled all because of the health care law.

One of the things the President promised the American people with the health care law--he said it would lower the cost of care, and people's premiums would go down $2,500 per family. He said he wanted to go after this because health care spending was too high in the country, and the spending was going up. Yet we had a colleague say that the health care law is a success.

On May 5, just a few days ago, USA Today had a headline that said ``Health Spending Up Most Since '80.'' Health spending is up. The President said it was going to go down because of his law, but it is up the most since 1980.

The article says:

Health care spending rose at the fastest pace since 1980

during the first three months of the year . . .

They say that ``Health care spending climbed at a 9.9% annual rate last quarter''--almost 10 percent. That is not what President Obama told the American people would happen.

I would point out that this is a drastic increase in spending when the health care law was supposed to do just the opposite.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports higher spending in hospitals--the largest rise since the 1980's third-quarter. It is astonishing when the President promises the American people one thing and delivers another.

In this same Monday USA Today there is a Pew Research Center poll which is interesting. When you read about this, it says:

The poll of 1,501 adults, including 1,162 registered

voters, was taken April 23-27 . . . Other findings help

explain the Democrats' woes. By more than 2-1, Americans are

dissatisfied with the direction of the country. They remain

downbeat about the economy. They aren't persuaded that the

Affordable Care Act is going to help them and their families.

Even the president's supporters worry he is a political

liability for fellow Democrats.

I come to the floor today as a doctor who has taken care of patients for 25 years in Wyoming, and my concern with health care is actually ``care.'' The President became fixated, as did the Democrats, on the word ``coverage.'' Coverage doesn't actually make sure that people get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what people wanted with the health care law. They don't want what was pushed down their throats by the Democrats in the House and the Senate who said they knew better than the American people.

I find it fascinating to see that in States run by Democrats around the country--Maryland, Oregon, and Massachusetts--which have had the exchanges and have given up. They have said, no, our State exchanges don't work and can't work. Massachusetts has been in play for a number of years, and they had to shut it down and turn it over to the Federal Government because of the mandates and complexities of the health care law--hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to care for people. It should have gone to help people. Instead it has gone to consultants and computer companies. It is not helping people. It is wasted.

Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland have given up. They said: We can't even live under this health care law's mandates. Our computer systems don't work. So let's turn it over to Washington. The American people are fed up with turning things over to Washington.

It was interesting to hear my colleague from Connecticut talk about some of the concerns and stories that we are sharing with the American people about folks losing their jobs, part of their pay, and bringing home smaller paychecks as a result of fewer hours at work.

I would like to share a situation that is now happening in Iowa. It was reported a couple of weeks ago in the Ottumwa Courier. Iowa is a State where we have a Democratic Senator from Iowa who is a very active supporter of the health care law. He was on the floor day after day about how wonderful this health care law was during the debate.

Let's talk about what is happening in one community in that Senator's home State in Eddyville. It says:

Faced with a nearly $138,000 increase in insurance costs

the Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont School Board--

We are not talking about a business here; we are talking about a community school board--

this week approved reducing the hours of all para-educators

from about 37 to just 29 hours per week to avoid the

requirements of the National Health Care Act.

That is a side effect of the Obama health care law that every Democrat in this Chamber voted for when that came up for a vote.

So they had some meetings.

The article goes on and says:

In February, Superintendent Dean Cook recommended cutting

12 special education para-educators and three more working as

librarians.

My colleague from Connecticut said none of this is happening and that these are just incidental stories; don't pay attention to them.

The article goes on to say:

However, this week his recommendation instead was a choice

of either cutting eight para-educators or to reduce the hours

of all of para-educators (around 25 to 28 employees), for the

2013-14 school year.

One of the board members ``opted to reduce hours instead of cutting jobs.'' This is a tough situation to put a school board in--reducing hours and cutting jobs.

The board member noted:

It just gets pretty tight when we have cut paras in the

past. Those people play key roles in running the schools.

The article goes on:

In fact, several teachers spoke to or wrote letters to the

board, providing a detailed account of the jobs that para-

educators perform, urging the board not to cut these

positions.

The article quotes one of the members of the board, Gay Murphy, who said: ``I feel very frustrated that our hands are tied with the health care act.'' Fascinating. The board member has the same last name as the Senator who was down here on the floor saying: Oh, no; pay no attention to these important stories.

The article goes on to say that Gay Murphy ``asked that employees' hours be cut by working less days instead of less hours per day''--but still cut the hours under the President's health care law--``so it would be easier for employees to get a second job if needed.''

The President's health care law is cutting people's hours, and they are trying to find ways to make it easier for them to get a second job because their paychecks are being cut. Their take-home pay is being cut because of this health care law.

One other board member ``noted that quality employees may not stick

around for a 29-hour per week job and that special education students have a need for more consistency that comes with full-time employees.''

This is a sad story, and it is happening in communities all across the country. I think it is not a surprise that Republicans continue to come to the floor to say there are huge side effects of the health care law, and for some people who may have been helped by the law, many people are being hurt, and it is happening all across the country.

That is why when I heard my colleague mention on the floor that people are getting used to it or there is an acceptance of the health care law, I would just point out an article in the Washington Post:

Poll: Obamacare hits new low.

A new poll shows the public's opposition to Obamacare has

never been higher.

The Pew Research Center poll shows disapproval of the law hitting a new high of 55 percent. It comes on the heels of several polls last week that showed the law had very little, if any, bump after signups on the health care exchanges exceeded the goals.

So here we are, an all-time low for approval of a health care law, and the reason is because people's lives have been impacted. They have been hurt by this health care law. There are side effects of the law. People who were promised they would be able to keep the coverage they had--millions lost that coverage. They were told they could keep their doctor if they wanted to keep their doctor, and many Americans lost their doctor. They were told the cost of their insurance would go down and it has instead gone up. They are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and now people's paychecks are shrinking and their take- home pay is less because of a health care law that remains very unpopular.

That is why I felt compelled to come to the floor to point out to the American people, and to this body, that comments made previously by a colleague were not, at least in my opinion, based on what I have seen, heard, and read, consistent with the real impacts of this health care law and the impacts on patients, on providers, and on taxpayers.

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

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

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk once more about the negative side effects of the President's health care law.

President Obama has been spiking the football over the number of people who he says have actually signed up for insurance through his exchanges. He also said that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law.

He has had nothing to say to the Americans who are seeing their premiums increase.

This Washington mandate insurance is loaded up with so many specific mandates that unless you get a massive taxpayer subsidy, it is just not affordable for many families across this country.

For some people the insurance gets even more expensive, even less affordable, depending specifically on where you live.

Insurance companies used to base your premiums on a lot of different factors, like how likely you were to use insurance, and different things specific to how you would use medical services.

The Obama health care law took away some of that and replaced it with what they call a community rating. Now there are only a few factors that can be used to set people's premiums, and where you actually live is one of those. Your premiums used to be based on you, but now they are based on your neighbors and how likely your neighbors are to use their own health insurance. What we are seeing is all across the country people are paying more specifically because of where they live.

The Associated Press ran a story on this last month. The headline was ``Rural residents confront higher health care costs.''

The Associated Press quoted a rancher in Colorado whose premiums had jumped 50 percent--to about $1,800 a month. The rancher said:

We've gone from letting the insurance companies use a pre-

existing medical condition to jack up rates, to having a pre-

existing ZIP code being the reason health insurance is

unaffordable.

As this rancher said, ``It's just wrong.''

I agree, so I looked into this, and here is what I found. Some of the lines are drawn so that people just down the road or even people on different sides of the street can pay wildly different premiums. These are people of exactly the same age, and these are people who are buying the lowest-cost silver plan.

The President likes to talk about income inequality, but the President has created a new kind of insurance inequality. It is not only rural areas like where that rancher lives in Colorado.

In Louisiana in one community the premium for the lowest-cost silver plan in the ObamaCare exchange for a 40-year-old person who doesn't get a subsidy would be $255 a month. But if you live right across the street--right across the street--the premium for that same person, same age, same lowest-cost silver plan, would be $311 a month--22 percent higher, $56 more a month, just because you live on one side of the street instead of the other side of the street, under the President's health care law. That is $672 a year. That was Louisiana.

Now let's take a look at North Carolina, with the same situation. If you live on that side of the line, if your ranch house or farm house is over there, it is $263 a month. Just down the road, the other side of the line, it is $319 a month. Again, it is $56 more a month or $672 more a year for the same individual. All they would have to do is move from that side to this side and they would either save or pay that much more. It is 21 percent more expensive on one side than the other.

Is this fair? The Democrats talk about fairness all the time. Democratic Senators have come to the floor to talk about giving everybody a fair shot. Do those Democrats who passed this health care law, who voted for the law, think that in that county in North Carolina they are getting a fair shot depending on which side of the line they live? Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that they get this fair shot on either side of the line? Does President Obama believe that these people in North Carolina or Louisiana are getting a fair shot?

Why did the Democrats in Washington create a law that penalizes people based on on which side of the street they live?

Here is another example--Arkansas. Here we have an area, one side of the line or the other. On this side of the line it is $263 per month and on this side $294 a month--same age, same situation, no matter which of side of the line you live on--$31 a month more expensive.

Are those people in Arkansas getting a fair shot from the President's health care law? For too many people in places such as Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the costs of the President's health care law are unfair and are too high. Sure, there are some people who are being helped, but there are a lot of people who are being hurt by the President's health care law, people who are feeling the negative side effects of the law.

Why don't Democrats admit this? Why don't they admit that the health care law is not giving people a fair shot?

The President says: Forcefully defend and be proud. Why aren't the Democrats in this Senate who passed this law coming to the floor to defend the fact that for millions of people in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Colorado, and all across America, the premiums are too high. The health care law is too expensive for families, and it is also too expensive for a lot of employers.

There was an article in the Denver Post last week entitled: ``Health law

presents options, challenges for Colorado's small businesses.'' The article tells the story of a small business in Denver that sells cardboard boxes.

According to the article, the owner of this business has offered insurance to his workers for three decades. To get a policy that meets the new mandates of the President's health care law was going to cost 50 percent more than they had been paying in the past.

The article says, ``About half of small businesses in Colorado are seeing double-digit premium increases'' because of the law.

Double-digit premium increases are not what Democrats promised from their health care law, and it is not what the American people wanted. People wanted something very simple from health care reform. They wanted better access to quality, affordable care.

Instead, Democrats gave Americans higher costs and unequal treatment. It is not a fair shot. It is not what American people wanted, what they needed, and it isn't working.

Americans don't need a law that Democrats voted for without ever reading it, and it is a law that raises their premiums, a law that Nancy Pelosi said: Hey, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

Republicans have offered a patient-centered approach that would solve the biggest problems facing families: the cost of care, access to care, and ownership of their policies. That means allowing small businesses to pool resources in order to buy health insurance for their employees. It means letting people shop for health insurance in other States and buy what is actually best for them and their families. It means reforming our medical liability system to give patients fair compensation for tragic mistakes, while ending junk lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone. It means adequately funding State high-risk pools that help sick people get insurance without raising costs for healthier individuals.

These are just a few solutions Republicans have offered, just a few of the things that we will do to give Americans real health care reform and a real fair shot--health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost without all the negative side effects.

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

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

Mr. President, this week members of both parties have offered a number of energy-related amendments to the pending bill. The minority leader has even said he is willing to limit the number of amendments to five--five energy-related amendments--and the majority leader continues to say no.

I am not sure what the majority leader is afraid of in terms of allowing people to vote. People come to the Senate and they are expected to speak up and tell people their positions on various issues.

One of the amendments I had hoped to offer today expedites liquefied natural gas exports. The magazine The Economist recently published an article with the headline: ``The petro-state of America: The energy boom is good for America and the world. It would be nice if Barack Obama helped a bit.''

The article explains that the process for obtaining permits to export liquefied natural gas from the United States is insanely slow.

This isn't an exaggeration. In over 3\1/2\ years, the administration has approved only seven applications to export LNG. The administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. Fourteen have been pending for more than a year, and some have been pending for more than 2 years. These administration delays are unacceptable. The excuses have run out.

We have introduced legislation. LNG exports are a critical component of stopping Russian aggression against our key allies and strategic partners. Nine of our NATO allies import 40 percent or more of their natural gas from

Russia. Four of our NATO allies import 100 percent of their natural gas from Russia. These are our allies. Yet they are heavily dependent on Russia for their energy.

LNG exports would help our NATO allies as well as our strategic partners and allow them to free themselves from Russian energy. That is why our NATO allies are calling on us--on Congress--and the United States to expedite these LNG exports. These will give our allies an alternative supplier of natural gas and enable them to resist Russia's aggression.

It is going to be an added benefit for our country in terms of creating thousands of good-paying jobs here in the United States. As the Economist explained, LNG exports ``could generate tankerloads of cash'' for America. The exports will create jobs in gasfields in Wyoming, steel mills in the Midwest, and at our Nation's ports.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in order to offer amendment No. 2981, I move to table the Reid amendment No. 3025.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Adam is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. He is also a recent graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he earned a degree in French. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts during his time in my office.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Martha Crosby for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Martha is from Richmond, VA. She is a recent graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, where she earned a degree in political science, concentration in politics and government. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last few months.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Patterson Oaks for her hard work as an intern in my Casper, WY, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Patterson is a native of Casper, WY where she graduated from Natrona County High School. She attends Casper College where she is pursuing a degree in paralegal studies. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Patterson for the dedication she has shown while working for me

and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mickala Schmidt for her hard work as an intern in my Casper, WY, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Mickala is a native of Casper, WY where she graduated from Natrona County High School. She attends Casper College where she is pursuing a degree in international studies and education. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Emily Smithson for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Emily is from San Marcos, CA. She is a recent graduate of Brigham Young University-Hawaii, where she earned a degree in political science and history. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts during her time in my office.

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

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

Matthew is from Laramie, WY, and is and a graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he earned a degree in communication and journalism. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Madam President, today President Obama is doing televised events talking about climate change. According to press reports, the President is ready to pivot to the environment as an issue.

Well, I also want to talk about environmental stewardship today. I want to talk about what is going on in some of our States, where they are actually doing something, not just talking about it.

Today the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses are issuing a new report called ``Washington Gets it Wrong--States Get it Right.''

The report shows how regulations imposed by Washington are undermining the work being done at the State level to manage our lands, our natural resources, and to protect our air and water.

More often than not, Washington regulations and one-size-fits-all mandates do get it wrong. In the West we take very seriously our commitment to ensuring the health and viability of land, wildlife, and the environment. That is at both the local and the State levels.

Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior like to think of themselves as the ultimate protectors of our Nation's skies and open spaces. But we have seen time and time again that the work being done at the State level is more reasonable, more effective, and certainly less heavyhanded.

Thousands of people are working across the West to protect their communities. These are people who live in the West, not bureaucrats in Washington offices. Nobody is better qualified than the folks who actually live in the West, because they actually walk the land and breathe the air--the land and the air they are trying to protect.

So our report looks at the work being done by State agencies to protect not just the land they live and work on but also the people who rely on the health and safety of that land.

As this report demonstrates, extreme regulations imposed by Washington undermine the work being done at the State level, whether it is to manage lands and natural resources, protect air and water, or conserve species.

When we look at the work of these State agencies--as the Western Caucuses have done in this report--it is clear that when it comes to conservation and environmental efforts, the States do get it right. More often than not, Washington gets it wrong.

It is time for Washington to stop its overreaching regulations and the continual drip, drip, drip of mandates. It is time for Washington to stop getting it wrong and start recognizing how States get it right.

The report has details about specific things different States are doing, but I want to mention four categories where States are leading the way when it comes to environmental stewardship.

The first is protecting species on the ground. This includes conservation policies that States are developing, where they work with industry and landowners to protect species without hampering multiple- use policies; that is, multiple use of the land.

Second, States are showing the right way to protect our water, land, and air. They are putting in place ideas that are tailored to the needs of their own communities. They are actually looking at what is unique about their State and the best way for people to solve problems locally.

Third, States are promoting access to fish and wildlife. States understand they need to manage and protect lands and waters in a way that allows for public spaces to be enjoyed. That means ensuring those spaces remain intact for future generations. These are called natural resources for a reason--they are meant to be enjoyed by all of us, not sealed off under Washington's lock and key.

Fourth, the report looks at what States are doing right when it comes to in-state scientific and support staff. State agencies are employing thousands of people who live in the communities they are trying to protect.

Who has more incentive to protect the local environment? The people who are living there, the people who are working there, and the people who are raising their children in these communities, or some bureaucrats locked in a Washington, DC office? Who knows more about the specific unique features of a State or local area and what will work best there?

The Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses have put out this report to highlight just a few of the State initiatives we believe are working. I hope the President will take some time today to not just talk but to actually listen and to read our report and see some of the ways States are getting it right and Washington is getting it wrong.

If others are interested and wish to read the report, they can certainly find it at my Web site, www.barrasso .senate.gov. Madam President, I yield the floor.