Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague from Tennessee for his leadership on foreign affairs and his efforts in these areas. I fully support all of his efforts to bring forth a united position on behalf of our country.

Mr. President, I come to the floor because the American people have just received more horrible news about our economy.

The Commerce Department reported this morning that our economy grew at the smallest rate in 3 years. The exact number is 0.1 percent--much worse than expected. To be specific, investment in business equipment declined, residential home construction declined, U.S. exports fell sharply, and companies increased inventories at a much slower rate.

I wish to read what some of the economists have said about this. Dan North, a chief economist, said:

We've been living in sub-3 percent land, and people have

gotten used to that as the new normal. But it's not. It's

anemic.

To make matters worse, the Financial Times this morning is reporting

that China is poised this year to pass the United States as the world's leading economic power.

The American people deserve better than this and they shouldn't have to accept that anemic growth as the new normal. They deserve growth, good jobs, and better opportunities. That is not what they are finding from the Obama economy. Instead, the President continues to push an agenda that makes it harder for Americans to find good jobs and to bring home bigger paychecks. So I wish to speak about how the health care law specifically is slowing growth and how it is making American paychecks smaller.

I met earlier today with business leaders from Wyoming. They are here from Casper, Cheyenne, and Jackson, and I have heard input from them regarding how the health care law has impacted their businesses, how it has impacted our State of Wyoming, and how it has impacted our economy not just in Wyoming but nationwide.

It is interesting to watch the White House and the President specifically spike the ball, claiming that 8 million people signed up for health insurance through the government exchanges. At the same time, President Obama has declared that the national debate about his health care law is over. The meaning of the number is highly questionable, and the administration's victory lap is premature. In fact, the ObamaCare debate is far from over.

So I come to the floor to speak about additional side effects of the Obama health care law. I will continue to do this week after week because the side effects on the American people and the American economy and on health care in this country continue to be very damaging.

I will speak about smaller paychecks as one of the ObamaCare side effects, to point out that the debate is not over for the millions of Americans who are experiencing the negative side effects of the President's health care law voted on by Democrats and not by Republicans. One of the worst of these side effects is the smaller paychecks many families are experiencing specifically because of the mandates of the health care law. It is happening all around the country.

Let me tell my colleagues what is happening as reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader. This is just one example. The article was talking about small businesses that have found that paperwork and costs related to the law are threatening the economic platforms on which their companies are built. It quoted a man who runs a ski area saying the law could mean he has to open later in the season and close earlier in the season. That is because people on his payroll for 120 consecutive days or longer have to be offered health insurance under the Democrats' health care law.

Mother Nature might say there is plenty of snow, the skiers and snow boarders are ready to go, the resort wants to open, restaurants are ready to serve people, hotels are ready to host people, but ObamaCare says the resort can't open without facing enormous costs for Washington-mandated insurance. It is hurting people working at the ski resorts. It is hurting people in businesses in those communities.

Who pays for the negative side effects? It is the seasonal workers who will now be limited to fewer than 120 days of work at ski facilities such as this one in New Hampshire. They will work fewer days with smaller paychecks because of the health care law. The New Hampshire Union Leader summed it up this way: ``As snowboarders say: bummer.''

It is not just seasonal workers who are being hurt. This column also talks about the ski resorts in Colorado being hurt.

In North Carolina, State government agencies are starting to get very worried about how to deal with the health care law's mandates. The law says employers--including State and local governments--have to cover people who work 30 hours a week or more. That is whom the law considers full-time workers. When I talk to business leaders from Wyoming, most people think of full-time work as 40 hours. Not President Obama. He is a 30-hour man.

According to a story from WTVD in Raleigh, 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 250 part-time employees who are now working more than 30 hours. They have 250 workers in the North Carolina Agriculture Department, and those 250 people are working more than 30 hours, but they are part time. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has almost 600 people in the same situation. So North Carolina is going to have to look very closely at what to do with those people, and that can mean smaller paychecks.

Local governments are having to make these same decisions because of the health care law. WITN, another station in Greenville, NC, did a story last month about how schools are cutting the hours substitute teachers can work--the same 30-hour Obama workweek limit again. The health care law wasn't about substitute teachers, but they are the ones feeling the negative side effects and they are the ones seeing smaller paychecks.

The story quoted a teacher in Pitt County, NC, who said she got a letter from the school district there telling her she wouldn't be able to work as much. Substitute teachers are now limited to 3 days a week. Why? Because of the expensive mandates of ObamaCare.

She told the TV station, ``I'm willing and able to work, and now they're telling me I can only work for so long.''

This teacher is one of 200 in her North Carolina school district who are going to be limited to 21 hours a week, and she is wondering how she is going to make ends meet with 21 hours a week. That is a side effect of the health care law that means smaller paychecks for substitute teachers.

President Obama says the debate is over. Is it over for teachers in North Carolina who are seeing their time cut to under 30 hours a week? Is it over in ski resort communities in New Hampshire and in Colorado?

Look what is going on in Iowa. An article just last week in the Ottumwa Courier said that a local school district was cutting the hours on all paraeducators from 37 hours per week to 29 hours. Those extra hours may not mean much to Democrats on the floor of the Senate or the House Members who voted for this health care law, but they are a real big deal for a lot of families struggling in the Obama economy.

In Colorado, the Aspen Daily News reported last month that adjunct professors at Colorado Mountain College are going to have the same limit of 29 hours a week. This school has 112 full-time faculty, but it has 600 part-time professors. Some of them just want to teach a class here or there to make extra money, but some of them are trying to string together enough hours to support themselves, to support their families, and they are getting hammered by the President's health care law that every Democrat in this body voted for.

It is happening all over the country. We have heard stories today about New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado. Here is a final example. A borough in Alaska announced earlier this year that it was putting a cap on the hours of firefighters and emergency medical technicians.

According to one technician, some stations are limiting people to just 24 hours a week. So we see teachers, firefighters, professors, seasonal workers all hurt by the side effects of the Obama health care law, and they are all getting hit with smaller paychecks--nothing they have asked for. They want to work. They are ready to work. They are willing to work.

We have a weak economy, an anemic economy, and the President and Democrats do not seem to care. They do not seem to care. They think the debate is over. President Obama says the debate is over.

He says Democrats who voted for this should forcefully defend it and be proud. How can the President forcefully defend these smaller paychecks? How can the President be proud of these smaller paychecks because of his law and what he had Democrats vote for--in North Carolina; Alaska, where you hear these stories; New Hampshire; one after another after another; Colorado.

Well, it is not over for Americans, who are continuing to get hit in their wallets, people in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Alaska, all over the rest of the country. It is not over for Republicans, who will continue to stand for those Americans

and keep pushing for commonsense reforms that will actually help people get the care and what they wanted all along, which was better access to quality, affordable health care.

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

Mr. President, it seems the President's decision is absurd, to delay the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is not just me saying that. That is the Washington Post, Thursday morning, April 24: ``Keystone XL's absurd delay. President Obama should approve the pipeline project now.'' They say:

If foot-dragging were a competitive sport, President Obama

and his administration would be world champions for their

performance in delaying the approval of the Keystone XL

pipeline.

They go on to say:

The administration's latest decision is not responsible; it

is embarrassing. The United States continues to insult its

Canadian allies by holding up what should have been a routine

permitting decision amid a funhouse-mirror environmental

debate that got way out of hand.

They conclude by saying:

The president should end this national psychodrama now, bow

to reason--

Think about that: ``bow to reason''--

approve the pipeline and go do something more productive for

the climate.

That is not just the Washington Post. We see also the Wall Street Journal, on Wednesday: ``Keystone Uncensored.'' They talk about a labor leader calling the administration ``gutless,'' ``dirty,'' and more.

So why would a union leader--who endorsed President Obama in 2008 as a candidate, endorsed him again in 2012--why would he say this? He actually went on to say: ``It's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics.''

To get an answer to that, you have to look at an article that Politico ran last Thursday called ``The left's secret club.'' It said:

Some of the country's biggest Democratic donors--including

Tom Steyer . . .--are huddling behind closed doors next week

in Chicago to plan how to pull their party--and the country--

to the left.

The meeting will be held in the ballroom of the Ritz-Carlton. Politico describes the group as ``a secretive club of wealthy liberals.''

So who is Tom Steyer? Well, he is a hedge fund billionaire who has said he is hoping to spend at least $100 million to defeat candidates who support the Keystone XL Pipeline and who oppose his extreme environmental agenda.

I want to be absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with legal participation in elections. If a hedge fund billionaire like Mr. Steyer wants to spend his money talking about his views, he is free to do it. I disagree with his views, but I would never come to the floor of the Senate and denounce him as un-American. But that is exactly what the majority leader, Senator Reid, has done, repeatedly coming to the floor to criticize and demonize people who do not share his views. I have not heard Senator Reid demonizing Tom Steyer or any other wealthy liberal donors.

According to Politico, the majority leader was actually scheduled to attend a fundraising dinner at Mr. Steyer's home a few months ago.

So the coincidence, to me, of the administration's announcement right before this big liberal political event remains suspicious. The silence of the majority leader about one person's spending when he has been so outspoken about the spending of other people is certainly suspicious as well.

Maybe that is what the union head meant when he said: ``It's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics.'' Whatever the reason, the important thing is that President Obama continues to turn his back on thousands of middle-class families in desperate need of jobs.

That is what needs to change. The administration and this body, controlled by Senator Reid and the Democrats, can no longer put politics ahead of policy substance. It is time for the administration to do the right thing and to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline no matter what the Democrats' secretive billionaires say.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly since the health care law has been passed, with concerns I have and to share some information with the Senate because of my concerns that in order to help some people who did not have insurance, I am afraid we have hurt many people who did have insurance, did have care they liked. The President continued to focus on coverage, and I have more concerns, as a doctor, about people actually getting care, getting health care, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

So I come to the floor today to talk about a new story out this morning, actually in the Huffington Post, called ``How Obamacare Leaves Some Patients Without Doctors.''

I recall how the President had said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Yet we are hearing stories from all around the country of people who have found that not to be true.

I have heard the majority leader come to the floor and say in a statement that so many stories are lies, they are made up. But I will tell you that this morning, in this publication, there is a lengthy story of several patients in California who have had pain, problems, medical concerns, signed up for insurance, and, as a result, have found out they have insurance, they have coverage, but they cannot find care.

So I would like to share with the Senate today a story, and it has some of the concerns I raised during the debate and the discussion of the health care law. But the Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, from California--the State where this happened--said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Well, now people all across the country are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out they are terribly disappointed and they feel they have been sold a bill of goods and they are getting stuck with a bill, and they are finding out it is not very good for them.

The report in this morning's Huffington Post starts out:

In January, a doctor told [Ms.] Friedlander, who was

suffering from excruciating lower back pain, that she needed

surgery to remove part of a severely herniated disc.

Well, she had Blue Shield insurance, as they report, through Covered California, which is California's version of ObamaCare, and she planned to use that coverage to pay for the operation. It makes sense.

This is what happened. It says:

But when she started to call surgeons covered by Blue

Shield, she ran into a roadblock. Surgeons who were covered

by her insurance--

amazingly--

operated out of hospitals no longer covered by her insurance.

. . .

So if the surgeon was covered, the hospital was not or, vice versa, she could find a hospital that would cover her surgery but could not find a surgeon who was covered by her insurance that was on the staff of that hospital.

It says:

[Ms.] Friedlander spent days on the phone, hours on hold,

making dozens of calls across Southern California, trying to

match a surgeon with a hospital that would both be covered.

In total, she reached out to 20 [different] surgeons and five

[different] hospitals.

``No one could help me. Some expressed sympathy,''

Friedlander, 40, told The Huffington Post in an email. ``They

told me, `I'm so sorry--it's all just so new. You're a victim

of the changes. No one knows what they're doing.' ''

So what we have here is a victim of the Obama health care legislation because first we had to pass it before we get to find out what is in it.

Unable to match a hospital and a surgeon that were both

covered, [Ms.] Friedlander started haggling between doctors

for a cash price for the surgery. She chose a surgeon who

wasn't covered by her insurance but who operated in a

hospital that was covered.

Because she could not, with her insurance, get both the hospital and the doctor.

She expects her insurance to pay the hospital bill, but she

had to pay her surgeon's bill herself.

All out of her own pocket.

The article goes on to report:

. . . nationwide, about 70 percent of Obamacare plans--

About 70 percent of the plans purchased on the Obama health care law--

offer fewer hospitals and doctors than employer-sponsored

group plans or pre-ACA individual market plans, according to

a study by consulting firm KcKinsey & Company released in

December. This narrowed number of doctors and hospitals is

what [Ms.] Friedlander encountered when trying to match a

surgeon and hospital that would both be covered.

What we are hearing today is that about 70 percent of ObamaCare plans offer fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, in spite of the President's promise to the American people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

Now, Covered California says they are aware of the problem. A spokesman for the group--a senior medical adviser with the ObamaCare plan in California--says:

We understand that some people are having trouble getting

access to the doctors and hospitals they need. And we're

working very hard to fix [that] as fast as we can.

Well, perhaps if people had actually read the law, understood what was in it, they would have seen this coming.

The President said your insurance premiums would drop. He said families would save $2,500 a family. But the article says:

To make up for ACA costs and keep premiums low, Blue Shield

asked its doctors

and hospitals to accept payments from the insurer at rates

[well] reduced--

Reduced from what they normally got--

reduced [by] up to 30 percent.

The article goes on:

Not surprisingly, some doctors and hospitals rejected Blue

Shield's reduced payment rates and decided not to re-sign

contracts with the insurer. At least three major Los Angeles

hospitals previously covered by Blue Shield--

And, Madam President, I will tell you, these are first-class hospitals, these are highly thought-of hospitals, hospitals with incredibly good reputations.

. . . three major Los Angeles hospitals previously covered

by Blue Shield--UCLA--

The University of California-Los Angeles--

Cedars Sinai and Good Samaritan--have opted out of the

insurer's new network. . . .

According to [the communications manager from Blue Shield],

Blue Shield of California now has about 40 percent fewer

physicians and 25 percent fewer hospitals in its network than

last year.

You listen to what is happening, and they talk about the significant gaps occurring in California.

These are the concerns I hear about when I go home to Wyoming every weekend. These are the concerns I heard about this past weekend in Casper, in Douglas, in Riverton, in Thermopolis, and in Newcastle traveling around the State. People are not able to keep their insurance. They are not able to keep their doctors. It is happening all across the country, and we see this story out of California today.

The interesting part of the issue with California is that--the article goes on and they talk to an insurance agent in Sacramento who says: `` . . . people who already had insurance''--`` . . . people who already had insurance''--``especially healthy, young people, may be paying more under Covered California''--``may be paying more''; not what the President promised--``for fewer hospitals and doctors.''

That is not what the intent of the health care law was but it is what the health care law has delivered.

This is what is happening to real people, real families, all across the country. The majority leader says: false, made up, whole cloth. But I will tell you, these stories will continue to occur.

It is interesting, in today's article in the Huffington Post it says:

And when signing up for a plan, it's difficult to determine

which doctors and hospitals are still covered.

They are talking about California now. The article says, quoting an insurance agent in California:

``You can sign up on Covered California and think you're

totally fine, only to find out later that you're totally

hosed''. . . .

This man, David Fear, goes on to say:

Specialist doctors, such as surgeons, ob-gyns and

urologists, declined Blue Cross and Blue Shield's lower

payments most frequently. Fear estimates that about two-

thirds of Blue Cross and Blue Shield's specialists have opted

out of the networks.

It is not just that one patient whom I talked about. There is, like Ms. Friedlander, Ruth Iorio, a 35-year-old new mother from Los Angeles. She is struggling to find the care she needs in Blue Shield's smaller network.

She signed up for Blue Shield through Covered California in

November because the Covered California website listed her

hospital--

The Web site, the President's Web site, the Covered California Web site--

listed her hospital, UCLA, as accepting Blue Shield. . . .

Continuing:

However, after Iorio gave birth in December, she was told

that her ob-gyn at UCLA was not covered by her insurance. So

she paid out of pocket.

Iorio has not been able to find a urologist for her son or

an ob-gyn who is both covered by her insurance and practicing

in a hospital that is covered.

The President said: You can keep your hospital, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan.

She's called over a dozen doctors who are covered by her

insurance, and each has told her that if she or her son needs

an operation in the hospitals the doctor contracts with, it

won't be covered.

So even if they get a doctor who is under their plan, they cannot go to a hospital to get actually a procedure done.

As this lady says:

``My insurance is pretty useless. And I'm not fussy about

what doctor I see,'' Iorio said. ``I don't know what to do. I

may just drop it for myself and keep my son on it. It's

really depressing.''

It is really depressing what the President and the Democrats have forced down the throat of the American people with this health care law.

The article continues:

Before joining Covered California, Iorio had an individual

Blue Shield plan that was cheaper than what she now pays and

that gave her wider access to doctors and hospitals.

Cheaper, wider access. Exactly what the President had promised her is exactly what this woman has lost because of the health care law.

She goes on and says:

``I'm paying $500 a month and every doctor I'm calling is

saying, `No, I can't see you,' '' she said. ``I feel like a

second-class citizen.''

Is that what the President's health care law is all about: making people feel like second-class citizens, hearing from folks when they call and ask for help that, sorry, you are just a victim of the Obama health care law--a nation of more and more victims? It does seem, as you look around the country, for those who have been helped, we should not have had to hurt this many people because of a law the American people said ``we do not want'' and was forced, on single-party lines, down the throats of the American people.

This law is bad for patients. We have seen that today. It continues to be bad for providers--the nurses, the doctors, who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for taxpayers. Tax rates will continue to go up. Taxes are continuing to go up as a result of the health care law and the expenses related to it. It has failed repeatedly in dealing with the needs of the American people, who knew what they wanted in the first place, which was they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. Instead, they got this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, after 38 years with the Wyoming Mining Association, Marion Loomis is retiring.

Marion started his career in the early 1970s with the State of Wyoming's Department of Economic Planning and Development as an economic development geologist. In one of his first jobs, he ran the fuel allocation office during the Arab oil embargo in 1973. In 1976, he joined the Wyoming Mining Association and was made executive director in 1991. His vast knowledge and experience are tremendous assets to the State and its people, and we are grateful for his service.

In Wyoming, we have adopted the Code of the West as our official State code of ethics. Marion Loomis personifies the code. This list of ten ideals every man and woman should live by perfectly describes Marion's personal--and professional--demeanor. Marion Loomis takes quiet pride in his work. With his advocacy, Wyoming has seen exponential growth in the coal industry. When he began, Wyoming produced 8 million tons of coal annually. Today, around 400 million tons of Wyoming coal are mined and shipped nationwide--and worldwide.

Marion has never been one to boast or brag. Instead, he lets his accomplishments speak for themselves. In the past 40 years, Wyoming's production of trona has grown from 1 mine that produced 300,000 tons per year to 4 mines which produce over 10 million tons annually. When he speaks, people listen. They know that his opinions reflect a lifetime of study and are tough, balanced, and fair.

Throughout his career, Marion Loomis has been a champion for Wyoming energy. He was a steadfast leader for the Wyoming Mining Association during several boom and bust cycles in energy development. The State's uranium production is a prime example. He witnessed a booming industry stagnate in the 1990s. Today, it has emerged again as a valuable resource. Marion has always promoted Wyoming as a key player in our Nation's quest for energy independence. He truly does ride for the brand, and his leadership is inspiring.

Marion retired from the Wyoming Mining Association earlier this month. He will be missed, but he has left both the association and the industry stronger, thanks to his dedication and hard work. In the days ahead, Marion plans to fish the streams of Wyoming's Bighorn Mountains, where he and his wife have a cabin. I cannot think of a more fitting reward for a job--and a career--well done.

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

Mr. President, this week President Obama has been holding what appear to be made-for-TV events to talk about the economy. He has been talking about the policies he wants Congress to enact, policies that he says will finally get America's economy going again.

President Obama has been in the White House now for more than 5 years, so I think it is fair to ask: What has this administration--the Obama administration--been doing for the economy over the past 5 years? We know that the recession actually ended almost 5 years ago. Since then, our economy has not bounced back the way it should have or the way it typically does after a deep recession.

The Obama administration has spent a lot of money on failed ideas such as the so-called stimulus package. Since the recession ended, Washington has racked up more than $6 trillion worth of additional debt, and it has not gotten us nearly the kind of growth we should have had as a result of this spending.

Now the President has come out with a budget in which he has asked for tax increases of over $1.7 trillion--nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. Taxes are already too high. When I go home to talk to my constituents--as I would think most Members of this body hear from their folks at home--they say taxes are already too high.

Americans are now preparing to file their taxes. Income tax day is coming--April 15. As Americans prepare to file their taxes, they are getting a reminder of just how much of their hard-earned money Washington is taking from them. Next Tuesday, April 15, is the deadline for most of us to fill out the forms and send everything off to the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans will spend more on taxes this year than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.

We now know how much President Obama is spending, but what kind of effect have his policies been having on our American economy? We know that the economy is still not producing the number of jobs we need for a real recovery. We know if we want to look for the reasons why that seems to be the case, we could talk about the two million jobs Democrats are blocking with their restrictive energy policies.

We could talk about the minimum wage bill that Democrats are pushing right now. The Congressional Budget Office says that would reduce employment in the United States by one-half million jobs--they say maybe as many as 1 million jobs. Yet the majority leader comes here and says it is the best thing we can do for the economy. Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost the economy one-half million jobs and maybe up to 1 million jobs.

But probably the largest and most harmful thing the administration has done--not just with regard to the economy, but to other factors, including the lives of the American public--is the President's health care law. This law is hitting people across the country. There are folks who are seeing their premiums go up, losing access to their doctor, getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies, and it is also having an effect on our economy.

Today we had our usual Wyoming Wednesday where people from around the State of Wyoming come to Washington and meet with their two Senators from Wyoming so we can talk to people from our communities. Today I heard another horror story related to the President's health care law. A family had insurance that worked for them, and it worked for them for a long time. It fit their budget, and it fit their needs as a family. But, of course, it was canceled as a result of the President's health care law and the mandates where the President believes he has a better idea of what works for their family than they know in terms of their family.

This husband and wife have a couple of young children, and they lost their insurance. They tried and tried again to get reinsured through the exchange. It took them months. They finally went with paper forms to apply. The stories go on and on, and it is horrible to listen to what American families have had to go through as a result of the President's health care law. This is a family that was hurt as a result of the President's health care law in terms of what they are paying for insurance, in terms of the deductibles that are now in place, and in terms of not being able to go to the doctor of their choice.

We have the effect on the family and the effect on the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law is going to lead to 2\1/2\ million fewer people working over the next decade. These are not my numbers. These are the Congressional Budget Office's numbers. Because of the warped incentives that are built into this law, some people will have to choose between working more and getting higher wages or working less so they can collect government subsidies.

Remember Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House on the Democratic side. When this law was jammed through and down the throats of the American people, she was saying: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.

I actually read the whole thing, and it continues to astonish me how few Members of this body and the body across the way actually read it and instead just took her for her word. Now what we are seeing are these unintended consequences continuing to show up.

Even some Democrats have had to admit as much about this issue of people having to work more and getting higher wages or choosing to work less so they can collect greater government subsidies.

One liberal columnist wrote in the Washington Post back in February that ObamaCare is ``a drag on economic growth.'' He said it was ``a drag on economic growth.'' It is a drag on economic growth ``as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.'' The President wants higher taxes, but he sets into place a health care law that discourages the work and additional income because the government subsidies get greater if you work less and have a lower income.

That is one way that the President's health care law has been harmful, and there is another way as well. Remember, this law requires employers to pay for insurance for anyone working 30 hours per week or more. Thirty hours per week or more is considered a full-time job. There is bipartisan legislation in an effort to try to actually overturn that and get that back to the 40-hour workweek, which is what most Americans think of as a full-time job.

How do people have to respond to the health care law that is out there? What are towns doing with their town budgets? What are counties doing in States all across the country? What are school districts doing? We see what they are doing, and they are talking about it. Towns, communities, counties, school districts, and universities are cutting back on the hours of their part-time bus drivers, librarians, coaches, and other middle-class workers. They are cutting back to get them below 30 hours a week so they don't fall into the mandates of the President's expensive health care law.

What does that mean? It means it hurts people's take-home pay. If someone is working 32 or 33 hours a week and finds that their hours have been cut to 29 hours--regardless of what the majority leader wants to do with minimum wage--their paycheck is going to get smaller. Their paycheck is going to be smaller because of the health care law. Their paycheck will be smaller because of policies that Democrats have voted for--many of whom never read it in the first place.

Is this just a Republican versus a Democratic idea? Not necessarily, because a group of labor union leaders who supported the law initially have said that this health care law will ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.''

The House of Representatives voted last week to do something about it. They passed--in a bipartisan vote--a

bill that would change the definition of full-time work under the health care law from 30 hours to 40 hours.

Senator Susan Collins introduced a bill to do the same thing here in the Senate. So what has happened with it? Well, the Democratic majority leader isn't allowing a vote on that bill.

This is a commonsense way to reverse some of the harm the President's health care law is doing to hard-working Americans--how it is impacting their take-home pay, how they are seeing smaller paychecks and impacting their quality of life. But the Senate majority leader has blocked the vote. So the health care law hurts patients, it hurts health care providers, and is hurting the economy.

It is interesting, because the President said all he wanted to do was insure the people who didn't have insurance. So we have an exchange. We have turned the whole health care system upside down. We have impacted one-sixth of the economy. And the whole purpose: to take people who didn't have insurance and get them insured.

What does the Wall Street Journal say about it today in the headline talking about the newest statistics in the RAND study? They say most who bought policies through the new exchanges--most who bought policies through the new exchanges--already had insurance. They weren't uninsured. These people had insurance already.

Many lost their insurance because of the President's health care law. Yet we have turned upside down one-sixth of the economy in an effort to help some but have hurt so many in the process. That is one of the fundamental flaws and problems of a health care law where the President promised, if you like your coverage, you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her. Now we have millions of people whose coverage has been canceled. We have many people who can't keep their doctor, can't go to their hospital. They are seeing higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles, more pain because of what the President and the Democrats have forced through the Congress, forced through the House, forced through the Senate.

The American people wanted to change the health care system in this country and they knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. They didn't get that in this health care law. Many Americans have seen their costs go up--their initial out-of-pocket costs--to buy the insurance on the exchange. They have seen their copays go up. They have seen their deductibles go up. And they can't keep the doctor of their choice. So they know what they wanted, and this is not what they wanted, but it is what they have gotten instead. People understand that.

That is why this health care law is still so very unpopular across the country. People see how bad this health care law is in terms of their own lives and how bad it is for the American economy. They see how 5 years of this administration and the policies have held back our economic recovery.

Tax day, April 15, coming next week, will be another opportunity for Americans to reflect on how much of their money Washington has been taking from them and what they have gotten in return. I would say, as they reflect upon that, they will continue to say they are not getting value for their money. They are not getting value for their money.

Polling shows that--and I hear this at home in Wyoming--for every dollar people send to the government, they think they are getting less than 50 cents on the dollar in value. They don't like it because it means when the government takes more, they have less to spend.

The government is deciding where the money is spent, not families. And it is families who want to make decisions for themselves about their freedoms, about their health care, about their financial choices--what they want, what they need, and what works best for them.

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, yesterday President Obama held an event at the White House to talk about his health care law. The President said:

The debate over repealing this law is over--the Affordable

Care Act is here to stay.

That is what President Obama said yesterday. Of course, last October President Obama said his health care law was ``the law of the land.'' Then he went ahead and changed or delayed the law more than 20 times after that--on his own, without coming to Congress. If it is the law of the land, how does he get to change the law of the land 20 times?

Back on March 6, President Obama said the Democrats' health care law is ``working the way it should.'' Well, if the law is working the way it should, why do people in Wyoming keep telling me how bad the law is for them personally?

Just the other day I heard from a woman in Rawlins, WY. She wrote:

My husband has been self-employed at a small truck driving

company servicing the oil and gas fields in [Wyoming] for

over 13 years. We have always purchased individual healthcare

coverage for our family of five. We currently pay $906.87 for

that coverage.

She said:

The lowest priced ACA Bronze plan will increase our premium

to $1359 per month, an increase of $452 per month--an amount

we cannot currently absorb. This is not affordable. Why is

[President] Obama doing this to us?

That is a good question. Why are Democrats here in Washington doing this to families such as this woman's family in Wyoming? Why does President Obama think his law is working the way it should?

Well, the Senate Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, said here on the floor of the Senate back on February 26 that the law is going great. The majority leader said, ``Despite all the good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told.'' He went on to say: ``All are untrue, but they're being told all over America.''

``All are untrue,'' he said here on the floor.

The majority leader added that all of the stories were ``made up from whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements.''

Why does Senator Reid think this woman in Rawlins, WY, is making up a story out of whole cloth?

Remember, the President also said that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said people's health care costs were going to be $2,500 lower by now. So the President has said a lot of things that turned out not to be accurate. Now the President says his health care law is here to stay.

Given the President's history, I think it is fair to get a second opinion. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming, I come to the floor to tell you that I bring my medical experience, along with my colleague's experience, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. He and I have put together a report that looks at some of the promises Democrats have made about the law and some of the things Republicans have said about it. The report is called ``Prognosis.'' It came out April 2014 and is available today on Senator Coburn's Web site at www.coburn.senate.gov or on my site at www.barrasso.senate.gov. What we have done is come out with a report going through three different previous reports that, as doctors, we have put out watching the health care law as it has been developing. Each of the reports--one called ``Bad Medicine,'' one called ``Grim Diagnosis,'' and one called ``Warning: Side Effects''--was released between 2010 and 2012. We grade ourselves now on how the predictions we have made over the last 4 years have turned out.

In the first prediction we made--report No. 1, ``Bad Medicine''--we warned that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance plans.

The headlines all across the country show that over 5 million Americans did, in fact, get letters that they lost their health insurance plan--health insurance which they liked, which worked for them, something they chose and they lost because the President said it wasn't good enough. He said he knew more about what they needed for themselves and their families than they did. So we predicted 4 years ago that millions would lose their health insurance plans, and millions did.

We warned that the law's new mandates would increase health costs and obviously increase the cost of insurance. That original diagnosis is confirmed as well.

Like the letter I just read from the family in Rawlins, WY, families all across Wyoming and all across the country are seeing incredible increases in the cost of their insurance. They are paying more, and in their opinion they are getting worse insurance--the President said better; I say worse--because they are having to pay for a lot of things that they don't need, don't want, and will never use. Yet the President says he knows better than they do about what kind of insurance they need and what is best for them and their families. They are also being faced with higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs.

We warned additionally that short-term fixes threaten seniors' long- term access to care.

That is actually exactly what happened. The health care law took $500 billion out of the Medicare Program--a program to take care of our seniors--not to strengthen Medicare, not to help our seniors, but to start a whole new government program for other people. For those 14 million Americans on Medicare Advantage, a program for which there are advantages--preventive care, coordinated care, things one would want-- well, that has been dramatically hurt by the President's decision to take money away from the very popular Medicare Advantage plan.

We warned that patients with preexisting conditions would still face care restrictions.

I listened to the President's speech. I read editorials written by colleagues on the other side of the aisle as recently as last week that said people with preexisting conditions are all being protected. That is not true. We know of patients who because of their condition have had to leave the State in which they live to get specialty care in other States. And when they lost their insurance and bought insurance through the plans of their State, their children with cystic fibrosis seeking specialty care in Boston are excluded from doing that under the plan because the insurance was bought in the State in which they live and the insurance they got did not cover any out-of-State physicians. So children have been hurt by the President's health care law, and we can identify those young victims of the President's health care law.

We warned that the individual mandate would fail with the IRS as an enforcer.

The IRS even admits they don't have a whole mechanism put together to make sure the mandate to fine Americans for not buying a government- approved product would be collected by the IRS.

We warned that new IRS taxes would harm small businesses.

That initial diagnosis is now confirmed. Small businesses are impacted all across the country by additional expenses and costs, making it much harder for them to provide insurance to their workers. Many looking at this are saying that it might be cheaper to pay the fine than to do what we would like to do and have done in the past, which is provide insurance that worked for those employers and their employees but perhaps doesn't meet the President's recommendations of what many people say is much more insurance than they will ever need, want, use, or can afford.

The second report we came out with a number of years ago is called ``Grim Diagnosis.'' In that, we went through a number of concerns we had about the health care law after the initial report ``Bad Medicine.''

``Grim Diagnosis'' provided warnings that the employer mandate would lower incomes and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost.

We are still watching that one very carefully because we do know that with the employer mandate, there have been stories of businesses with 50 employees saying: We are going to have to get below 50. We are not going to hire more people. We have to get below that number.

The President is working to maybe make that a higher number, but no matter where that number line is drawn, people are finding that from a business standpoint, there are advantages to being below a certain number of employees and then not having to comply with the expensive mandates of the law.

We warned that the law included a risky insurance scheme that would cost taxpayers dearly.

That original diagnosis is confirmed as well with something called the CLASS Act. Folks who looked at it carefully on both sides of the aisle called it a Ponzi scheme--a Ponzi scheme--that would never work, could not be afforded. They said it was something Bernie Madoff would even be proud of. Yet the Democrats forced it into the health care law in spite of warnings against it.

Our final report was called ``Warning: Side Effects,'' released in 2012. We started talking about the side effects of the health care law. We warned that the law includes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes.

Well, that has been confirmed. All one has to do is look at the list of new taxes brought on by the health care law. It goes on and on with one new tax after another. These are taxes on real people that get passed on to others if they are applied to a business, totaling

$1 trillion in gross tax increases over the next 10 years, from 2013 to 2022.

We warned that the new insurance cooperatives would waste taxpayer dollars.

That is exactly what this report confirms. It goes State by State, where we see significant wasting of money, as reported in the Washington Post and in USA TODAY.

We warned that the medical device tax would stifle innovation.

That original diagnosis has been confirmed as well. We see the medical device tax, which, when we talked about it as part of a budget amendment, there was bipartisan support for repealing it. Why aren't we voting to repeal it when it matters, when we could actually get this repealed? The Senate majority leader continues to block a vote on that.

So I come to the floor, the day after the President held his ``mission accomplished'' speech at the White House, to say that the prognosis for this health care law continues to be grim, the points we have made throughout continue to be true, and the people all across the country are experiencing it day-to-day.

They are experiencing it in their lives. They are experiencing it when they try to continue health insurance that works for their family. They are paying more out of pocket. Their premiums are higher. They may not be able to keep the doctor they had and liked. They may not be able to go to the hospital they had gone to previously.

It is interesting that in the State of New Hampshire where there are 28 hospitals, 10 of them are excluded--10 of the 28 hospitals in the State of New Hampshire are excluded--from the insurance being offered on that State's exchange to be sold in that State. Even the doctor who is the chief of staff of one of those hospitals--well, her insurance does not permit her to go to the very hospital where she is the chief of staff. Is this what the Democrats had in mind when they passed this health care law, people paying more in premiums, people losing their doctors, not having access to the hospitals in their community, higher copays, higher deductibles? That is what the American people are facing.

It is time for the President of the United States to acknowledge the pain that his health care law has caused people across the country. I know he watches the polls, and the polls continue to show that for every one person who says they may have been helped by the health care law there are more than two people who say they have been harmed.

People knew we needed health care reform in this country, and they knew the reason. People knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

This health care law has failed to deliver to the American people what they wanted, what they asked for, and instead is trying to deal day-to-day with something the Democrats in this Senate and in the House shoved down the throats of the American people.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues for up to 45 minutes.

Mr. President, before I start, I noted that the Senator from Connecticut came to the floor in an attempt to debunk a letter from one of my constituents to me, a family from Rawlins, WY, whom I talked about earlier on the floor.

It seems the Senator is making the same argument the majority leader Senator Reid has made time and time again that these letters are made up. That is what seems to be the case. Is that what the Senator from Connecticut is saying? These are letters, these are emails, these are news articles that are out there coming from our constituents and coming from our home States.

This was all supposed to be about affordable care. Care and affordability were the keystones of this entire piece of legislation.

So I heard the Senator from California talking about people being denied care. It is happening now because of the health care law-- because of the health care law people are being denied care.

Let me reference where my colleague from Connecticut comes from. The State of Connecticut, the Hartford Courant, a major newspaper in the State of Connecticut, has a report that came out March 17 of this year, just a couple of weeks ago: ``Connecticut Is Less Competitive After Federal Health Care Reform.''

I heard the Senator from California saying there are people who have been helped, and I believe that, but for every one person who has been helped, I believe many have been harmed as a result of the law.

Let me tell you what our friends from the Hartford Courant wrote:

The individual health insurance market is less competitive

in Connecticut since the implementation of the Affordable

Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, the Kaiser Family

Foundation said in a report released Monday.

Of the seven States to release enrollment data by insurer,

Connecticut and Washington had fewer options--

Fewer options, not more options, as the President of the United States has claimed--fewer options. The article continues--

for people buying health plans on the individual market,

according to Kaiser foundation, a non-profit health policy

research organization.

California and New York, the largest States in the study,

each has a more competitive insurance market today compared

to 2012, Kaiser found.

But Connecticut, the State where my colleague had questioned where the woman from Wyoming comes from, is less competitive. The article continues:

In 2012, Connecticut's individual health-insurance market

was more evenly distributed among a number of insurers.

They list Aetna, WellPoint/Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, EmblemHealth/ConnectiCare. It says:

Connecticut has fewer insurer options available on Access

Health CT, its public health exchange, which was created by

the Affordable Care Act.

As of February 18, two insurers dominated 97 percent of

health plans sold through Access Health CT.

There is a ``less competitive exchange market and'' let me point out ``higher than average premiums.''

If that is what my colleague from Connecticut wants to say is a success, let him have it, but he has no right, in my opinion, to come and say that a woman who wrote to me is either not smart enough to know how to figure out how much of her premiums she is being asked to pay and what her premiums were prior to her losing insurance because of the health care law.

Then the Senator from California came to the floor to say: Well, people aren't losing the care they had.

NBC Connecticut, again where our colleague is from, says: ``Some Connecticut doctors said they will not accept certain health insurance plans offered on the state health exchange.'' The story goes on to say: ``It broke my heart,'' losing the doctor she had been to before whom she trusts and has faith in but because of the health care law is losing that care.

I come to the floor to just point out that Republicans have better ideas. Republicans have ideas about ways to help work to lower the cost of care so patients can get the care they need from a doctor they want at lower cost, not the situation we see across the country, where many individuals believe and truly feel harmed as a result of the President's health care law.

With that, in response to what my colleagues from Connecticut and California have just said, we are here today to talk about jobs, the economy, getting people back to work. As a doctor, I will tell you long-term unemployment, how it affects someone's life, how it affects, I believe, their identity, their self-worth, their dignity, and the way they think about themselves, and so it is much more important that we get Americans back to work.

I am on the floor with a number of my colleagues. The Senator from South Dakota is on the floor, and he knows as well as anyone the impact unemployment has in rural America, in the Western United States and how when jobs go away it makes it much harder for other jobs to come. I would ask that he share some of those thoughts with us right now.

I thank my colleague, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague Senator Blunt, who has been a leader and champion on the issue of getting people back to work.

We heard the Senator from Rhode Island saying there are people out there desperately looking for work. What we are doing is bringing to the floor amendments to this piece of legislation that will actually get people back to work nearly immediately.

So I rise today to discuss how Congress can actually help the people who are unemployed get back to work. We have been debating all week whether the Senate should extend unemployment insurance to the long- term unemployed. And whether or not one supports extending unemployment insurance, we can all agree and should all agree that job creation should really be the top priority. This, to me, is where the unemployment insurance bill, as currently written, falls short. That is why I, along with a number of my colleagues, have filed amendments that would help create nearly 100,000 jobs.

Our amendment would do two things, and President Obama has failed to do them. The amendment I am here with Senator Hoeven to discuss would permit--approve the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as liquefied natural gas exports to our allies and strategic partners.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for over 5\1/2\ years--over 5\1/2\ years. During that time the Obama administration has conducted five separate environmental reviews of this project--five environmental reviews in the last 5\1/2\ years.

Despite this scrutiny, President Obama continues to delay approving the Keystone XL Pipeline even though its construction would support over 42,000 jobs. That 42,000 jobs number is not my number. This is the jobs estimate from President Obama's own State Department.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has broad bipartisan support throughout the country. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent of Americans support the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Labor unions such as the plumbers and pipefitters, building and construction trades, international labor, and the union of operating engineers, among others, have all called on the President of the United States to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Just over 1 year ago, 62 Members of the Senate voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

If the Senate is going to extend unemployment insurance, it should also help Americans get back to work. We should adopt this amendment which approves the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The other part of the amendment deals with approving LNG exports-- liquefied natural gas--to our allies and strategic partners. Before getting into the specifics of that, I ask my colleague and friend from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven--who has worked closely with supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a man who was Governor of the State of North Dakota during the early discussions--to express his thoughts on why we think this is important to the economy, to help those people who are unemployed, and help getting Americans back to work.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, a State in which he served as a Governor, a business leader in the community, and knows the State very well and knows the importance of energy--not just to his State's economy but to the economy of the country and the importance for people who want work, who want jobs.

I think bringing together the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as the exportation of liquefied natural gas is what will help get Americans back to work.

Since September of 2010, the Obama administration approved only seven applications to export liquefied natural gas. The administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. Thirteen of those applications have been pending for more than 1 year. Some of these applications have been pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context: The United States has approved less than half of the LNG export capacity that Canada has approved. To me, this administration's delay is unacceptable and the excuses have run out.

I take a look at this from the standpoint of what is happening globally as well. Ukraine imports about 60 percent to 70 percent of its natural gas from Russia. 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.

LNG exports would help our strategic partners and allies free themselves from Russian energy. This is why our NATO allies are calling on Congress to expedite--expedite--LNG exports.

LNG exports will give our allies an alternative supply of natural gas and enable them to resist Russia's intimidation. LNG exports will also help create jobs right here at home.

In February, The Economist explained that LNG exports ``would generate tanker loads of cash'' for the United States.

More recently, Nera Economic Consulting suggested that LNG exports could help reduce the unemployment rolls by as many as 45,000 over the next few years. This is extraordinary. LNG exports would not only create new jobs but would employ Americans who cannot find work today.

LNG exports would help as many as 45,000 Americans find work. President Obama through his actions has made it very clear that jobs are not his priority. He seems to be more interested in inventing new delays and new excuses than in actually creating new jobs. That is why the Senate must act today and here in this place. That is why the Senate should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and LNG exports and that is why we should adopt the amendment that Senator Hoeven has offered.

So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say Republicans have now tried to offer 9 amendments we believe would get this economy growing again, amendments we believe would actually create jobs and put people back to work.

Now, to inform my colleagues of what I am about to do, I am going to move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, which for everyone's information is an amendment which merely changes the date of enactment. So Senators voting not to table this amendment would rather change the date than vote on amendments that would help put people back to work.

In order for my colleagues to be able to offer amendments, I move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this past Sunday was the fourth anniversary of President Obama's health care law.

Four years ago Democrats in Washington were confident the law they forced through Congress would be extremely popular today. Instead, the law has broken almost every significant promise President Obama made about the law itself, and Americans regrettably have been left to deal with the consequences.

The actual law doesn't even look the same as it did 4 years ago because President Obama has lawlessly rewritten so much of it. Last night word leaked about the latest change. Now the administration is getting rid of the March 31 deadline for some people to sign up for insurance in the government exchange.

According to this morning's Washington Post, if people just check a box on the Web site saying they are having trouble signing up, they will get an extension until at least mid-April--and I wouldn't be surprised if another extension after that and then again beyond.

Remember, the Obama administration said 7 million people would have to sign up by March 31 in order for this open enrollment period to be a success. Those are the administration's words. But with less than 1 week to go, they are 2 million short of their goal. That is why they are allowing this extension because they are in a panic, a panic not enough people are signing up.

The White House may come out and say they have come close to their 7 million target. They may even claim they were somehow able to find all of the 2 million people they needed to buy insurance on the exchanges, but looking at some of the dubious numbers the administration has released so far, we can predict there will be many unanswered questions about the numbers--whatever numbers the White House claims to now be the new numbers.

The first question we should ask about the numbers is, how many of the people signing up actually have insurance?

Apparently, it doesn't seem to matter much to the administration how many people who go to the Web site actually have insurance. The Obama administration released a report showing how many people went through the signup process on the Web site through the exchanges. Those people don't actually have insurance until they write a check, pay their premiums, and make sure they do have insurance.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said recently she had no idea in the world--no idea at all--about how many people had paid and how many had not paid, and she is the President's Secretary of Health and Human Services--no idea.

Insurance companies say they have given Washington plenty of information to know the answer to that question, but the person in charge has no idea.

One industry official told Politico:

If they have not processed those yet and compiled the data,

that is a choice they are making. But they have that data

now.

The White House can say whatever they want--and they tend to do that--but they have the data. They are not admitting the truth.

Why isn't the administration playing it straight with these numbers? The point of ObamaCare was to get people insurance, not just register them on a Web site. A recent survey by McKinsey & Company found that only 53 percent of the previously uninsured people who had selected a plan actually then went and paid the first month's premium. So only about half of the people that didn't have insurance before, who signed up on the Web site, actually went to pay for and buy the insurance. That is question number one.

Question No. 2 is: How many people are newly insured? That was the major goal of the Obama health care legislation. Washington Democrats said time and time again that we needed a massive overall of the entire health care system of this country in order to cover the uninsured. Many of the people who are signing up today and people who have signed up are doing so because the insurance they had, that they liked, that worked for them, that they could afford, under the health care law was canceled. The President's health care law forced them to switch.

How many people? We don't know that either. One Health and Human Services official admitted as much. He said: ``That is not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systemic way.''

The government officials overseeing this part of the Web site are not even collecting the data. The goal of the whole policy plan was to get people that didn't have insurance on insurance. They are not collecting that data point at all. It turns out that the paper application for ObamaCare included a question--reasonably so--as to whether that person already had insurance because it is information we want to know. But the bureaucrats and the contractors who were apparently overseen by the President of the United States, who created the healthcare.gov Web site--the Web site that the President said was going to be easier to use than Amazon for insurance and cheaper than your cell phone bill-- apparently they just dropped the question. Why did they do that? Why did they drop the question that was on the paper form and leave it off of the Web site to ask if somebody had actually had insurance before? That is what they did.

Isn't it something the Obama administration would want to know if they wanted to be honest with the American people. The best estimate has been from this McKinsey survey. They figure that by early February only about a quarter of the people who signed up for ObamaCare insurance were actually newly insured. Three-fourths of them were just changing out insurance, many of whom had their insurance canceled. If that number holds, the exchanges might end up covering fewer than 2 million previously uninsured Americans this year--fewer than 2 million people who didn't have insurance before covered on the exchange. Think about how much simpler, how much more cost effective health care could have been while still covering that same number of people.

Here is the third important question. Who exactly is signing up? The administration is pushing young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 to buy insurance. It is not happening the way the administration wants it to happen. Through February, less than 10 percent--less than 1 in 10-- of the young adults who potentially could enroll

have actually done so. Insurance companies need lots of young, healthy people to pay premiums--to pay for premiums and then not use much care in return. That is the only way this works. Unless more of those young people sign up by the beginning of next week, theoretically--now extended by checking a box--premiums are going to jump.

Here is the final question. When people buy insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges, what kind of care will it provide? Just remember what the President said: If you like what you have, you could keep it; you could keep your doctor--easier than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone. People are losing access to doctors they have known and trusted for years. We have heard from people around the country that this has happened. But for some people having a doctor won't mean they can actually see the doctor. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, we are facing a shortage of about 90,000 physicians by the end of this decade.

Some patients may be able to get to see a doctor but maybe not the one they need. According to an Associated Press survey that was reported last week, only 4 of 19 leading cancer hospitals--only 4 of 19 leading cancer hospitals--said that they accept the plans from all the insurance companies in their State's exchanges. For many other patients, the doctor is going to be spending more time looking at the computer instead of looking at them, even though they are in the same office together because of the burdensome new rules and recordkeeping requirements in the law. Maybe you can keep your doctor, maybe you cannot. Do you need special cancer care? Are you worried about whether you are going to be able to get that, and is the doctor going to be able to look at you and interact or is the doctor going to be staring at his computer screen instead of you in the limited time they have because of the burdensome requirements? It is going to be bad for patients.

So patients are going to be getting less care and many will be paying a lot more than they were paying before. Secretary Sebelius finally conceded that the rates will continue to rise in 2015. Now The Hill newspaper that is around--this is what they said on Wednesday, March 19: ``ObamaCare premiums are about to skyrocket.''

The President said: cheaper than your cell phone. Reuters ran a headline that said: ``Insurers see double-digit Obamacare price rises in many states next year.'' Bloomberg's headline yesterday was almost the same: ``Obamacare insurer WellPoint Sees Double-Digit Rate Rise.''

The President said recently the law ``is working the way it should.'' The President of the United States looked into the camera and said it is working the way it should. What does he think of the people who are on the other side watching him on TV? Does he realize how he is losing credibility with the American people when he makes blatant statements like that, when they see how poorly it is working?

I believe the President has no idea how the law is working, how poorly it is working or what is going to happen next. Does he really think the law is working or is it just a line that somebody wrote for him and that he read? It is hard to know. Does he think that double- digit premium increases are a sign that the law is working? I heard from one of my constituents the other day, as we were away for the week talking to people around Wyoming, and he put it in writing. He is from western Wyoming. He said:

Senator Barrasso, I am sorry for the snide subject of our

e-mail but the truth hurts. I know I am preaching to the

choir but I just wanted to share our story and frustration.

Now I know the majority leader has been to the floor and said all of these stories that we tell are all lies. This is a person who lives in Wyoming. This is what is happening in that person's life. He said:

We have finally just finished applying for health care

through the exchange and found out that our health insurance

will double if we sign up. Fortunately for us, we are covered

under our own insurance until this December. Our current plan

is $505 a month, and it has a $15 thousand deductible after

which it is an 80/20 split. The rub for us is the following:

Under the construct of the subsidy plan we would

theoretically qualify, based on our family size (5 girls) and

our income. But since my employer offers health insurance for

me and my family, we don't qualify. So we are stuck in limbo.

Nonetheless, if we go on my employer's health insurance, we

will be paying over $1000 more each month. If we go on the

health care market place plan, the least expensive is $1,054/

month. This is a significant increase for our middle class

family.

I thought the affordable health care act was supposed to

help us not hurt us.

The affordable health care act was supposed to help us, he said, not hurt us.

We are panicked on how we are going to pay for this in

December? We will be taking all of the money that was going

into savings to pay for a terrible insurance plan. Please

help us and share our story with people who say this act is

helping the middle class.

I wish the majority leader were here to hear this. Please share this story--our story--a true story about a family in Wyoming, with those who say the act is helping the middle class.

Madam President, it clearly is not. Does it sound like the law is working for this man and his family? President Obama says it is working just the way it is supposed to work. It is not working for this man and his family.

Our health care system needed reform. It needs it now more than ever. We all know that. What Americans got with the Obama health care law was a monstrous new bureaucracy. It is raising costs for millions of people. It is leading to worse care and other unintended consequences. Now these questions are just a small part of what the American people want to know.

In fact, as of last night, I can think of another question. How does the Obama administration define the word deadline? Kathleen Sebelius in the House the other day said the deadline is March 31. We are not going to extend it. We are not under any circumstances going to extend it. The White House press secretary said the same. Are there any deadlines at all for anything in this administration? Is it all on the honor system?

As we start to get answers to these questions, we are going to see even more clearly that this health care law has failed patients, it has failed health care providers, and it has failed taxpayers. The President needs to admit that his law is not working. He needs to accept Republican ideas to replace it. Americans need better access to quality, affordable health care, not just broken promises, tired excuses, and unanswered questions.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor, having heard my colleague's concerns and story of a family who was helped by the President's health care law. We want people in this country to be helped. My concern is there are a lot of people who are actually being hurt by the President's health care law. We shouldn't have to hurt people, specifically people who have had insurance, to try to help people who haven't had insurance. That is the big concern that my friend from Connecticut referred to as I came to the floor this morning to discuss.

I have grave concerns about the impact on the people of Wyoming and all around the country as we are getting letters and concerns. We were told on the floor that all of these stories--nine of us were reading different stories--that all of these are lies.

These are not lies. These are people hurt by the President's health care law. We see them in States all around the country.

We don't know how many people have signed up, how many have gone to the Web site. The White House can't even tell us if they know how many have insurance.

Sure, they may have had a lot of people visit the Web site. I wonder how many people have actually paid to have insurance? What the President asked for is he said: We are going to get 30 million people who didn't have insurance to have insurance.

It looks as if there may be fewer than 2 million who go through that. We know that fewer than 1 in 10 young people--the people who are supposed to pay for this program--young people paying more so that older, sicker people will pay less, those people aren't signing up. Only 1 in 10 of those eligible at that age is signing up.

That is what we are seeing across the country, and that is why the worry is that there is going to need to be a big bailout of this program because the money that is being spent by the taxpayers is not getting the job done. They are not doing it in a way to actually help the people who need help without hurting so many other people, the 5 million people who received letters of cancellation.

I hear my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is not only people--one person who may have gotten insurance in Connecticut who may have been helped in that situation. The impact on jobs and communities has been dramatic. When I looked at the State of Connecticut, there was a story in the New York Times only last month about the impact of this law that my colleague and friend has voted for that has now been changed over two dozen times. They are interviewing a superintendent of schools in Meriden, CT.

We just heard a story of somebody who was helped by the health care law. Now let's look at what has happened to the superintendent of schools in Meriden, CT, Mark Benigni. He is also a board member of the American Association of School Administrators.

In an interview with the New York Times, he said that the new health care law was having ``unintended consequences for school systems across the Nation.''

We have a letter from somebody in Connecticut, but let's see what happened to school systems across the country. Maybe they have children in school, I don't know.

The article states:

In Connecticut, as in many States, significant numbers of

part-time school employees work more than 30 hours a week and

do not receive health benefits.

We know the health care law defines a workweek as anything above 30 hours. They have people who are working part time with more than 30 hours, and according to the health care law those are full-time employees. So they have workers with more than 30 but who do not receive health benefits, and he says:

Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we

can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees?

That is a question asked by the superintendent of schools in a town in central Connecticut. He says:

If we have to cut five reading teachers to pay for the

benefits for substitute teachers, I'm not sure that would be

best for our students.

The impact of this health care law and the mandate and the costs go way beyond the health care of an individual or a family or a community. It goes to so many other things, including the education of our young people. And those are some of the tradeoffs and the unintended consequences that have developed since passing a 2,700-page health care law.

Whether they delay the signup date to allow more people to sign up, as a doctor, my concern is for those people who do sign up, what kind of care are they going to get. Are they going to be able to keep their doctor, which the President promised. The deadline date is less important than the kind of care people can get with the insurance they are mandated to buy as a result of the health care law, and pay a lot more than they would have paid had the law not been passed. Will they be able to keep their doctor? Will they be able to see a doctor?

We know there is a shortage coming of about 90,000 physicians, half of them specialists, half of them primary care physicians around the country. This is coming in the next 5 or 6 years. We know the things that are happening along those lines with not enough nurses, not enough physician assistants, not enough EMTs, paramedics--across the board not enough people to take care of the population of this country. Having insurance is not enough to provide care.

The President made promises that are not being kept. That is a concern I have when I hear the deadline is extended. My concern is what happens after they sign up. Will they be able to get the care they need?

Last week, the Associated Press reported the results of a poll of all these different cancer hospitals. My wife is a cancer survivor, so I know how important it is for people to have the peace of mind to get the care they need. Of the 19 hospitals that responded to the Associated Press, only 4 of the 19 said, yes, they will be able to accept all of the plans of the people who are signing up on the Web site in those States where those hospitals are located. So it is not just a matter of keeping your own doctor, but it is getting the doctor you need at a time of family crisis, personal family concern--the time when people are most vulnerable. Will the

fact they have some coverage bought through a Web site actually help them get the care they need? And will the doctor who happens to see them--even if they are able to keep their own doctor--be able to spend the time interacting with the patient or, with all the additional paperwork and time-consumption activities, will the doctor have to cut the visit short, spend time looking more at the computer screen than looking at the patient? There are complaints in every State of the Union from patients who are complaining either to their doctor or the nurse at the office or at the checkout area of the office saying, you know, I would have liked to have had the doctor look more at me and not so much at the computer screen.

There are many components of this health care law that are harmful to health care delivery and to patient care in this country, and so the President decides to unilaterally delay a part of the law that this last week or the week before the Secretary of Health and Human Services said will not be done; this is the deadline; this is it. When is the law not the law anymore? When it is just Swiss cheese? When do you trust somebody, take them at their word? Words have meanings.

It is time for this President and this administration to actually realize the American people see what is happening. Each time they do a delay or do a change or do this or that, it has a huge impact on people's lives as they try to decide what to do and what matters and what doesn't matter under this administration. People are very disappointed as a result of the health care law. Those who were looking for something better haven't found it.

We still don't know how many people actually have paid for insurance. We may know how many went to the Web site, but we don't know how many of those who bought insurance through the Web site actually had their own insurance and got one of those letters--of the 5 million people who got letters of cancellation--canceling their insurance or how many were uninsured.

It looks as though the Web site doesn't even want to look into that. On the paper application there is actually a box to check off. It says: I didn't have insurance but now I am going to get it. The Web site left that off. I don't know if that was ineptitude on the part of the designers of the Web site or if it was left off or fell through the cracks in the disastrous rollout. I don't know, but it wasn't there. So the administration, which said our goal is that of the 30 million people who do not have insurance, getting them insured, will never know the answer to that. Then there is the question of who are these folks, in terms of young or old, sick or not sick. And we know of those eligible, only about 1 in 10 has signed up.

But the big concern is--regardless of some of these things the President is doing to delay this and let others sign up or not sign up for a bit of time--what kind of care are they going to get? Whether they are insured through the Web site this week, next week, or the week after, what kind of care is going to be available to them? And what happens when they find the cost of the care--as for so many people I hear from in Wyoming--is much higher than they were paying before? And if they had a policy they liked--or are still finding, if they didn't have insurance--many of them still think the rates are unaffordable.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that has been in the news quite a bit, and quite a bit on the minds of people, I think, all around the Capitol, which is what is happening with, specifically, Vladimir Putin and Russia and the invasion and takeover of Crimea and the activities in Ukraine.

On March 15 Russian forces seized a natural gas distribution station in a Ukrainian village. I think this is key because this was right at the time they were getting ready to have a vote on Crimea leaving Ukraine, joining Russia, and I was in Ukraine at the time. I was there with a bipartisan group. We had eight Senators--Republicans and Democrats from across the aisle and across the broad spectrum of politics in America. What we saw at the time, right before the vote, was the helicopters heading in to take over the gas plant. To me that showed how Vladimir Putin thinks of energy, thinks of politics, and thinks of power.

In the Washington Post that Sunday morning, the day of the vote in Crimea: ``Ukraine decries Russian Invasion, Natural Gas Facility Seized.'' Their first action before the vote even occurred, the Russians came in and seized a natural gas facility. It showed his willingness, his desire, to use energy as a weapon. It is also a reminder that energy for us can be a powerful weapon to counter Russian aggression.

President Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he does not care about democracy, about freedom or about the Ukrainian people. What he does care about is money and power. As the United States considers how to help the Ukrainian people, as we are doing right now on the floor of the Senate with sanctions and aid, I think we need to make sure we take steps to hit Putin exactly where it hurts, which is in his wallet, in his power. Right now some may say: How does this matter? How important is this? Right now about half of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas.

We heard it today in the energy committee. The chairman of the committee stated that in her remarks before hearing testimony. Fifty- two percent, she said, of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas. I think Senator John McCain was exactly right when he said this past Sunday on CNN that ``Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.'' He was part of that group of eight Senators who went to Ukraine, went to Kiev, went and saw where the massacres occurred and visited with the new Prime Minister and the new President.

That is why I believe my amendment to this sanctions bill, this aid bill on the floor of the Senate, is so very important not just to us as a Nation but to the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, those who are trying to regain some freedom from the yoke and the tyranny of what Russia is doing by charging outrageous energy prices to people across Europe and across the Ukraine. We have an opportunity right now to make it easier for the United States to export our own gas to NATO countries and Ukraine. That is what my amendment will do. It is simple. It is two pages. By expediting the approval of facilities to export liquefied natural gas, we can send a very powerful signal to European markets that alternative supplies will be available soon. We can undermine Russia's leverage with its European customers today and undercut Russia's ability to make so much money off gas exports in the future.

Some Washington Democrats continue to act as though the conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with energy. Other Democrats see it differently. The Obama administration claims that speeding up LNG exports to Europe would not have an immediate effect. That is not what we heard today in the energy committee. That is not what a bipartisan group of Senators has heard and believes.

We cannot ignore Russia's economic dependence on energy and the reality about how energy markets work. Remember, half of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural gas. That is why the United States shale gas revolution is already undermining Russia's negotiating position with its European neighbors.

This all has come about in the last decade--new techniques of horizontal drilling, directional drilling, all of which makes energy in the United States easier, cheaper to get, and then more available so it can then be more easily exported. By reducing U.S. demand, that frees up supply that can be bought on European markets. Because there is more supply, that forces Russia's state-owned gas companies to adjust their prices. Every molecule of American gas that can get anywhere else in the world is going to be a molecule that those in Europe and those in Ukraine cannot be held hostage to buy from Russia.

That is what The Economist said earlier this year. The more supply there is, then Russia's state-owned gas company will have to adjust its prices. It

ran an article on European efforts to reduce the control Russia has had over gas prices. We can immediately apply more pressure to the region's gas prices and further erode Russia's revenues by approving additional liquefied natural gas export capacity.

I think about that hearing earlier today in the energy Committee, when every witness endorsed LNG exports to undercut Russia. So what is stopping us? Some Washington Democrats have denied any need to act more quickly. The administration has approved just seven applications for LNG export facilities over many years. It spent an average of 697 days processing each of them. The Energy Department has still not processed another 24 applications that are waiting and waiting and waiting.

My amendment would speed up that process, force the administration to act on applications to be able to allow energy to be sent to our NATO allies and to the Ukraine. We don't need more hearings to tell us what we already know. Natural gas and the pricing continues to be a boot on the neck of the Ukrainian people and in Europe.

Majority Leader Reid needs to allow a vote on my amendment. To me, it strengthens the Ukrainian relief package. It strengthens the economics in terms of money going from the United States. It strengthens aid, and it strengthens sanctions because it actually works to specifically undercut, undermine Russia's ability to hold others hostage. Plus, it has bipartisan support. There are a number of Democrats who would vote to support it. I think it is time to send a signal to Russia that we are finally ready to use energy to help stop their aggression.

I will point out that I am not alone in this, and there is significant across-the-board support. It is interesting, the number of headlines in the past week or so from papers with various different approaches, including the New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom In Natural Gas Can Curb Putin,'' directly tying natural gas to the Russian President. That is the New York Times.

The Wall Street Journal: ``West Tries To Loosen Russia's Gas Grip.''

Investor's Business Daily: ``Bold Energy Policy Best Response To Russia In Ukraine.''

The Wall Street Journal: ``Energy Exports as Foreign-Policy Tool'' and ``Moscow Tightens Squeeze on Ukraine Over Energy.''

It is evident the export of liquefied natural gas from the United States will help us as a Nation. It will help us in terms of our foreign policy, and it can be used and should be used and must be used to undermine the Russian economy at a time when they are--with Putin on the move, Putin on a daily basis evaluating the consequences of his actions to decide what he is going to do, planning to do, with the possibility of additional incursions into Ukraine. He continues with troops along the border between Russia and the Ukraine ready to act, ready to go in, ready to cross the border. All he understands is strength and power, and the way to undercut that is by undercutting his economic strength and power, by exporting liquefied natural gas.

So I come to the floor asking that Senator Reid allow an amendment that would strengthen the bill we are discussing right now and making it better for the people in Ukraine, better for the people here at home, and actually doing something significant about the problem we see existing with the additional use of power by Vladimir Putin.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to sit down for an interview with a health care Web site called WebMD. The President will take questions about his health care law, and he is going to try one more time to convince people across the country that his health care law hasn't really been a complete disaster.

It is a little bit ironic that the President will be doing this interview because under his health care law, before we know it, healthcare.gov is going to be linking directly to WebMD. People are going to have to spend a lot more time on Web sites like that one because the President's health care law is going to make it tougher for many of them to see a real health care provider.

America is facing a looming shortage of doctors, nurses, and physician assistants. When President Obama and Democrats were ramming ObamaCare through this Congress, they focused on hiring IRS agents-- agents to force Americans to buy expensive coverage--instead of training more doctors and nurses to deliver care to patients.

Now, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, we are looking at a shortage of 90,000 physicians by the end of this decade. About half of those are family physicians, primary care providers, and about half of them specialists. We see the same numbers, if not even higher shortages, in terms of nurses.

There is an old proverb: ``Physician, heal thyself.'' Well, apparently the slogan of ObamaCare is now going to be ``Patient, heal thyself.''

The old doctor-patient relationship is going to be gone. Medicine as we know it is going to continue to change. Even when you can get time with your doctor, there is going to be a lot more of that time spent with the doctor looking not at you but at a computer screen because of the law, and that is because of the burdensome new rules and the recordkeeping requirements under the law.

As more people try to get appointments with fewer doctors, some Americans are going to start seeing actual rationing of care. Here is how one economist described it in a blog post for the New York Times. He talked about the health care law's limits on payments to doctors and other providers, and he wrote:

If patients are lucky, the demand for doctors will be low

enough that the limits will not matter. But if the new law

results in a significant net increase in physician demand,

the payment limits will help remind us of Soviet-era limits

on the price of bread, with queues and black markets to

follow.

We know the President's Web site back this past fall was a complete failure. Four days before it was unveiled the President said: Oh, it is going to be easier to use than Amazon. The rates will be cheaper than your cell phone bill. You will be able to keep your doctor.

But the Web site was just the tip of the iceberg. People are seeing higher premiums.

It is interesting, Mr. President, as I was putting this together and thinking about what remarks I would make, I hadn't even seen this morning's newspaper. Today in the Wall Street Journal--Thursday, March 13--Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says: Higher premiums likely in 2015.

Higher premiums. What did the President promise? He said premiums would go down by $2,500 per family.

So the Web site is just the tip of the iceberg. People are seeing higher premiums now, and now the Secretary of HHS says there will be higher premiums again in 2015.

People have received notices of cancellation--over 5 million across the country. Many people can't keep their doctor and are worried about fraud and identity theft which has been reported as a result of the Web site and is ongoing. Then, of course, there are higher copays and higher deductibles--more money out of patients' pockets.

There is a report which brings this additionally to the fore in terms of concerns the people are having from people who supported the health care law originally. This report was put out last week by a major labor union discussing how badly this health care law is hurting its members.

To put this into perspective, this is a labor union which actually supported then-Senator Obama and endorsed him when he was running for President a number of years ago, and they supported the health care law. Now this union has come out with a report which says: The law's unintended consequences will hit the average hard-working American where it hurts--in the wallet.

We can go through this report called ``The Irony of ObamaCare Making Inequality Worse.'' To read from this:

The ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums,

loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less

comprehensive coverage.

It goes on with examples of various individuals who are members of this labor union whose lives are being hurt by the President's health care law. One, a woman from the majority leader's home State, talks about her job as a housekeeper and how, if she tries to buy the Obama health care program, the Web site says she would have to pay $8,057 a year more to keep the insurance she has now--which is a $3.87 per hour pay cut for her. She said, ``We work hard for our insurance. Why should we have to take a cut in pay for it?''

This is not what the President promised. So it is not a surprise that even the unions that had endorsed the President and supported the law are unhappy with what they see as the true results of the health care law.

The Democrat majority leader has said all the horror stories about the health care law are untrue. Is he also saying these union leaders and the people who have been made reference to in the union report are lying? Is this what the majority leader is saying? Is that what he is saying about this woman from his own State?

According to the media report, the union said the law ``will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.''

Everybody remembers the President's promises. They remember what the President said. Everybody remembers the President's statement: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' The press has called it ``The Lie of the Year.''

More than 5 million Americans received cancellation letters from their insurance companies. It turned out to be so embarrassing that President Obama had to delay the rules which caused it. It has continued to be a big problem, so the administration is delaying the rule again--not just until after the 2014 election but with the potential of going beyond the 2016 election as well.

Here we go, dozens of delays. This is a calendar of 2013 and 2014. There are more delays to come--another delay, another lawless ObamaCare rewrite.

The Obama administration continues to announce delays. We have seen one change after another to major parts of the law which are now ``politically inconvenient'' for the President.

Republicans warned that these were real problems and that they would hurt hardworking Americans all across the country. I was on the floor during all of the debates, talking about the problems to come with the health care law, offering solutions, offering suggestions--every one of them rejected because Democrats just didn't care.

They only cared the second they realized that all their grandiose plans were actually causing more problems than they ever anticipated because they didn't listen.

The President had an event last week where he said that the law is ``working the way it should.'' This is what he said--``working the way it should.'' Is it working the way it should after he made all of these changes? Is that what he means--``working the way it should.''

So if it is working the way it should, why has the President had to change it so many times? Does he not know what the rest of his administration is doing? Does he not know what the rest of this country is seeing? Is the President delusional or is he just in denial?

The American people want to know, and they deserve to hear from the President when he does this WebMD interview. When President Obama sits down to talk with WebMD on Friday, I hope they ask him about all of these delays and the changes he is making to the law. I hope they ask him whether he believes it is really working the way it should, which is what he said last week. I hope they ask him about how his health care law is going to reduce the time people get to spend with their doctors--if they can even keep their doctors. I hope they ask him about some of the ways the law is hurting Americans and America.

I hope the President answers that he is finally ready to make some of these delays permanent, to start over again, to work in a bipartisan way, to try to help patients get the care they need

from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. This is what health care reform was supposed to be about in the first place.

It is so interesting. Just pick up the papers. Yesterday, March 12, the Washington Post: ``Health Exchange Signups Slowed in Past Month.'' The New York Times: ``Health Care Enrollment Falls Short of Goal, With Deadline Approaching. Signing Up for Insurance, But Well Below Targets.''

Then, so many questions are asked of the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The headline in Politico today: ``W.H. Playing Dumb on ACA Enrollments, Insurers Say.''

I think the President needs to come clean with the American people and tell them about what a disaster his health care law has become, how it has impacted their lives, how few people have actually been able to sign up--or have been able to but have found the cost is too high for them to sign up--and admit to the American people that when they talk about some of these numbers of sign-ups, many of those are people who got cancellation notices. They are not newly-insured individuals.

A study out last week shows that only about one in four people who have actually signed up on the Web site didn't have insurance before. So the people this was intended to help are not being helped. Many people are being harmed.

It is time to work together to help patients get the care they need from the doctor they choose at lower costs.

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