Floor Statements

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object, today Russia's Defense Ministry announced new military operations in regions along the Ukrainian border, a disturbing development that comes 1 day after Ukraine's interim Prime Minister visited President Obama and met with Members of this body.

We are now faced with the inescapable reality that the Senate is about to enter a recess week, having taken no meaningful action to aid the interim government in Kiev. We are left with one option, taking up and passing the House-passed bill, which authorizes $1 billion in loan guarantees. We can pass that measure now by unanimous consent and assure our friends in Ukraine that they are not forgotten.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill contains provisions related to the International Monetary Fund that are unrelated to the crisis in Ukraine and not needed immediately and must be debated by this body.

The bill also contains sanctions, cuts to the Department of Defense, and other appropriations provisions.

The Foreign Relations Committee bill touches the jurisdiction of several committees and is certain to be met with opposition and perhaps a protracted conference with the House where, were we to take it up today, in the face of Russian armored vehicles, we are offering rhetoric, despite the fact that the committee bill addresses jurisdiction within the Armed Services Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and cuts Defense Department spending.

The chairman of the committee refused yesterday to allow me to offer amendments concerning the export of natural gas to markets in Europe. The Senate should debate whether helping Ukrainians through the export of natural gas is in our interest, as dozens of newspapers around the country talk about Moscow tightening the squeeze on Ukraine over energy.

The Washington Post says: ``Europe needs an alternative to Russian natural gas.''

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

The New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin.''

The Senate should debate whether helping the Ukrainians through the export of natural gas is in our interest. It should have that debate and pass sanctions, but none of those matters can be addressed today-- none of them.

The only bill that can get to the President quickly is the House- passed bill, and we should pass it now.

I object.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4152.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, at a small desk on the third floor of the Wyoming State Capitol sits Joan Barron. For 48 years, Joan has served as a reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, sharing Wyoming's government with Wyoming's people. On March 21, 2014, Joan is retiring.

Joan started her career in Rock Springs, WY. She was a nurse, but answered an ad to freelance for the Casper Star Tribune in 1966. The editors were impressed with Joan's work, and asked her to move to Cheyenne. Armed with a notebook and a typewriter, she became the capitol bureau reporter in 1969--a position she has held to this day.

Historians will undoubtedly use Joan's work to understand the State of Wyoming. She covered seven governors, 50 legislative sessions, three boom and bust cycles. She knows the issues, she knows the players, she does her homework. Throughout her career, Joan has been a trusted source, delivering the news of the day to the people of Wyoming. When an article has the byline, Joan Barron, Star-Tribune capitol bureau, a reader can be assured of fact-based, comprehensive reporting.

While Joan says she never wanted to be the story, she has had a tremendous impact on how those in Wyoming government conduct business. She was integral to the creation of the Wyoming Open Meetings Law in 1973. Due in part to Joan's observations, questions and perseverance, the Wyoming legislature passed ethics legislation. She held people accountable--and our State is better for it.

Just last week, Joan quietly announced her retirement--not wanting any fanfare. That is typical of her. She is always the observer, never the center of attention.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Joan Barron for 48 years of reporting. She has recorded over one-third of Wyoming's history--and her perspective will be missed. Wyoming owes her a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014.

In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays, and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays, and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands.

According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly.

Over 8 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight. This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts. That approach was a step in the right direction.

However, the agreements and process authorized under the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be. It is time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements.

The bill that I am introducing today, S. 2132, would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes.

I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements. In addition, the bill sets forth specific timeframes for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval.

This bill also has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. The bill also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued.

Additionally, S. 2132 would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development. This bill does not focus on only traditional resource development,

but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially longterm supplies of woody biomass materials.

My bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Enzi, Thune, Hoeven, and McCain for joining me in cosponsoring the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing S. 2132 expeditiously.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014.

In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays, and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays, and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands.

According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly.

Over 8 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight. This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts. That approach was a step in the right direction.

However, the agreements and process authorized under the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be. It is time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements.

The bill that I am introducing today, S. 2132, would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes.

I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements. In addition, the bill sets forth specific timeframes for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval.

This bill also has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. The bill also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued.

Additionally, S. 2132 would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development. This bill does not focus on only traditional resource development,

but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially longterm supplies of woody biomass materials.

My bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Enzi, Thune, Hoeven, and McCain for joining me in cosponsoring the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing S. 2132 expeditiously.

Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Texas for his comments, and I agree with his concerns. These are the same concerns I hear at home in Wyoming.

I was in Buffalo, WY, at a health fair this past weekend. Hundreds of people from the community turned out. They have concerns about the health care law. They have concerns about their take-home pay. They have concerns about their jobs. And Wyoming is an energy State.

I am the only Republican Senator who is both on the energy committee as well as the Environment & Public Works Committee, and so I think about the three Es: energy security, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. We need energy security for our country, economic growth for our citizens, as well as to protect the environment and be good stewards of the land. I believe in Wyoming we continue to do all of those.

The American people have made it very clear that what they want from Washington is a focus on jobs and the economy. This is not what I have heard, though, over the last 24 hours from the Democrats on the other side of the aisle. The American people I talk to want us to make it easier for them to get back to work, to provide for their families, to get the kids back to school so they can go off to work. People's jobs are linked to their identity, to their dignity, to their self-worth. I think more of these regulations make it harder for people to have a job, to keep a job, and to provide for their families.

So we had an all-night talkathon, and what did it accomplish? To me, the only accomplishment was a waste of time and more hot air. It seemed to be a dog-and-pony show to satisfy their big liberal donors.

The majority leader spent part of the weekend in California with a big liberal donor who has promised $100 million to the Democrats on the issue they decided to hold an entire night talkathon on. They had five or six Democratic Senators at this man's home in California basically saying: We want your money. We want your money. This is what the Democrats did.

So they put on an entire dog-and-pony show, showing that Democrats and their leadership--including the majority leader--is beholden to that liberal money that wants to call the tune for this Senate.

It is astonishing this would happen in the United States; that the majority leader of the Senate would take a number of Democratic Senators to California specifically to go to the home of somebody who says: I want to give $100 million to promote what he said was his agenda--his agenda--and make the majority leader dance to that tune. This is what we saw for the last 24 hours.

The majority leader could call a vote tomorrow--he could call it today--on a

national energy tax. I think everybody on this side of the aisle is ready and prepared to vote on that. But for most of these folks, they wanted to just talk all night. They don't actually want to do anything. They just want to talk.

The Democrats control the agenda. They control the majority. They have changed the rules in terms of approving nominees. They have it all lined up.

It is astonishing that the most vulnerable Democrats who are running for office this year didn't show their faces last night. They wanted nothing at all to do with this.

So we hear about regulations which are going to crush jobs and make it harder for people to go to work. As a doctor having taken care of people who are out of work for a long time--and I am sure the Presiding Officer knows people like this as well--I know that being out of work impacts their identity, the way they view themselves, and their human dignity. In fact, it affects their health as well.

As a doctor, I have put together an entire report: ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick,'' a report on the health impacts of high unemployment. Studies show EPA rules--the rules, regulations, and redtape--cost Americans not just their jobs but also their health.

For people who are chronically unemployed, we know there are higher rates of cancer, higher rates of suicide, higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of stroke, and higher rates of abuse--whether it is substance abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse. All of these add to hospital visits, premature deaths, all in communities where there is high joblessness. It is because of regulations which continue to come out of the EPA which are burdensome, which are expensive, which are time consuming. The costs are real, the benefits are theoretical, but yet this is what the Democrats on the other side of the aisle were talking about all night last night.

So I would say, instead of spending 24 hours on extreme regulations which result in a national energy tax, Democrats ought to be listening to the American people and focus on jobs and on the economy.

It is too bad Democrats would rather talk about a national energy tax for 24 hours than vote on the President's budget, a budget which never balances. Then vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline proposal which would bring, according to the State Department, 42,000 more individuals in our country into the workforce or even discuss and vote on other job proposals.

They don't want to talk about job creation ideas. I will continue to do so in terms of the Keystone Pipeline and in terms of exporting liquefied natural gas. We have an abundance in the United States which would be helpful to our economy, helpful to jobs, as well as helpful in our foreign policy as we work toward not just energy security but global security as well.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have come to visit with you today and the Members of this body with some concerns I have about people who are being impacted by the health care law. By ``impacted'' I mean hurt. Their lives are being hurt as a result of the impact of the health care law. We are seeing it around the country. As people are trying to comply with the law, we are finding that many people are losing their jobs or part of their jobs if they are working part time--to be held under 30 hours a week because under that criteria, people working less than 30 hours a week do not have to be provided with health insurance.

We have seen stories around the country of municipalities, of public employees who are having their hours cut and as a result, obviously, their take-home pay is cut, their wages are cut as a result of the impact of the health care law, as communities try to comply with all the aspects of the law. We have seen it with police forces, with teachers, with coaches, busdrivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, office clerks, sanitation workers, emergency personnel, university faculty--people all around the country who are being hurt as a result of the law.

Members of the Senate come from my side of the aisle to read letters of folks who have been harmed by the health care law. The majority leader comes to the floor and says these stories are lies. These are stories from people at home to whom I talk on weekends. I will be this weekend in Buffalo, WY, at the health fair, having a chance to visit with folks who are from Wyoming who go to a health fair for low-cost blood screening; also go to visit booths that are there from the heart association, the cancer society, the diabetes association, all taking efforts to try to improve the quality of their life, the quality of their care, and the quality of their overall health.

It is interesting to hear from these people, because I do not think the President hears from them. When I hear the majority leader say the people who come to the floor to talk about them--that these stories are lies, it is calling the people of Wyoming who have honest concerns about the way their lives are being impacted by the health care law as being untruthful.

I have come to the floor with more letters today and to talk about some things. It does make me wonder, when the majority leader comes and says these things are not truthful if he is not hearing the stories from the police officers and the teachers, the coaches and the bus drivers, the custodians, the cafeteria workers, the office clerks, the sanitation workers, the emergency personnel, the university faculty in States all around the country who have their lives impacted by the health care law.

What I do think is that other Senators, Senators who perhaps go home more often than the majority leader, Senators who maybe listen to their constituents more and read the letters, are seeing the damage that is being done by the health care law because the President is responding to their claims, their concerns, and to the point that the President himself has unilaterally delayed many components of the health care law.

These are the delays from 2013. Here is the calendar for the year. All of the X's are different days when there have been different delays. There have been dozens of delays as a result of the health care law impact on families across the country. I wish to read a couple of emails about the impact on lives of people in Wyoming.

This is from a gentleman from Casper, my hometown. I was there Monday. I will be there again tomorrow.

He writes:

My wife and I just received our new monthly premium

information for our health insurance. As of March 1, 2014 it

will go from $505 a month to $1,045 a month, an increase of

over double. This is for a Bronze level plan with a high

deductible and high out of pocket.

You know, I wish the President would actually kind of understand what the impact of this law has been on American families. I wish people who supported it, campaigned for it, would realize the impact on people's lives. He has gotten his premiums going from $505 to over $1,000, double increase, Bronze level plan, what the President wants people to have. It is the minimum level. It has a high deductible and a high out- of-pocket.

He said:

It is also the cheapest plan I have found so far for us

that is available in Wyoming and complies with the ACA.

Because the law says this man needs a lot of insurance. Maybe he does not need it. The President does not know this man, does not know his life, does not know his history, does not know what he actually needs in terms of insurance. But the President claims and the Democrats who voted for this health care law believe they know better than this man what he needs.

But you know what we do find out, when he wants to comply with the law, his insurance premiums more than double, for the cheapest plan which has the highest deductible and the highest out-of-pocket.

He says:

This increase will mean that money we would probably have

spent elsewhere will now need to be budgeted for the

insurance increase.

We go across the State to Moran, WY. Another resident of Wyoming writes:

I am a resident of Wyoming and about half of my income

comes from Social Security. My benefits total $958 a month.

In addition to that, I work part time at a ranch. It is a

seasonal job from May to October. I make about the same

amount there as I do from Social Security. I have recently

managed to submit an application for health care through the

healthcare.gov Web site. The cost to me with my current

income would be a low end of $837 a month with a $4,000

deductible. With the high end, it would be over $1,300 a

month with a $1,000 deductible.

Neither of those amounts are possible with my income range.

I would not be able to afford to live. Now I refigured this

with only my Social Security income and found that it would

be very affordable, lower deductible, lower premiums, but I

wouldn't have the income. I could possibly afford that but

would have to live in a very substandard poverty lifestyle by

quitting working.

So he has these options: He can continue what he does, but he cannot afford the insurance, or he can get affordable insurance by quitting working but then cannot afford to live. This is what the President of the United States and the Democrats have given the people of America.

He said:

I would like to work and contribute as long as I'm able but

things are looking pretty bleak for me.

This is a man who wants to work. This is a man who wants to work, but the health care law is making it a lot harder for him to do so. He said:

I am giving you this information in the hope that it will

be of some value in combating the unfairness of the

Affordable Care Act.

The unfairness of the Affordable Care Act. I have to believe that Senators on both sides of the aisle who actually go home and listen to their constituents hear about this, hear these stories, hear these stories all around the country, of the unfairness of the Affordable Care Act.

He then goes on and says:

Thank you so much for your service to your country and the

great State of Wyoming.

So here we have dozens of delays--and this is last year. Now it has happened again. Just yesterday the President came up with another delay. It is interesting the way it has made the front page of the New York Times, a paper that has supported the President, supported the law, front page, above the fold, story by Robert Pear.

The Obama administration, grappling with continued

political fallout over its health care law, said Wednesday

that it would allow consumers to renew health insurance

policies that did not comply with the new law for two more

years--

This is the New York Times speaking, front page, above the fold. This is not me. But they are repeating the kind of things I have been saying.

pushing the issue well beyond this fall's midterm elections.

So what is the idea here? Push it out beyond the elections, make people not see the reality and the danger and the damage that is coming their way until after they vote.

The article goes on, front page above the fold, today's New York Times:

The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers,

deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the

administration--

Here you have them. This is just in 2013. Now we have more in 2014.

--unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn

criticism from the law's opponents and supporters, many

saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers.

I believe that. I believe the President has gone way beyond the limits of his powers.

The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama--

The President of the United States, who told the American people, if they like what they have they can keep it; if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor; who said insurance premiums would go down-- all of which are untrue, one called the ``lie of the year.''

The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in

trying to build support for the Affordable Care Act and the

uproar over his promise--which he later acknowledged has been

overstated--that people who liked their insurance plans could

keep them, no matter what.

Over 5 million Americans got letters of cancellation, 3,500 in the State of Wyoming. A woman with a wonderful policy that worked for her, worked for her family, lost her insurance because it did not cover maternity care. She writes to me as a doctor and says:

Dr. Barrasso, please explain to the President of the United

States that I have had a hysterectomy. I don't need maternity

coverage.

You would think the President would understand that. You would think the Democrats who shoved this health care law down the throats of the American people would understand that as well.

This is interesting. Still on the front page of this morning's New York Times:

Under pressure from Democratic candidates who are

struggling to defend the President's signature domestic

policy, Mr. Obama in November announced a one-year reprieve

for insurance plans that did not meet the minimum coverage

requirements of the 2010 health care law.

Wednesday's action goes much further, essentially stalling

for two more years one of the central tenets of the much-

debated law, which was supposed to eliminate what White House

officials called substandard insurance and junk policies.

If this is what the President believes, why is he now coming out and having a delay announced--not coming to Congress, not saying: Hey, let's try to do something a little differently. Let me propose this. Let's have a bipartisan agreement to come up with some solutions to actually help people get what they wanted in the beginning with health care reform, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

The letters I am reading show people not being able to do that. They are paying much higher rates for things they do not need, will never use. We are hearing from people all across the country who are losing their doctor, can't keep their doctor, higher out-of-pocket costs.

We hear now the President wants to do some things unilaterally because a group of Democratic Senators who are up for reelection are worried about their political future, not about the future of the American people and the health care of the American people. That is why they are doing this.

You say: No, that seems like an exaggeration.

Well, let's go on. This next paragraph in the New York Times this morning:

The extension could help Democrats in tight midterm

election races because it may avoid the cancellation of

policies that would otherwise have occurred at the height of

the political campaign season this fall.

So the cancellations are still going to happen, people are still going to continue to be hurt. We have over 5 million people who have gotten letters of cancellation. It is not saying: Oh, the cancellations are never going to happen. It is saying: It will push them out until after the election, so people will not be so irritated, angry, and aggravated at the Democrats who voted for it, in an effort to try to save their elections, try to save their Senate seats, but not to help the American people.

This goes on:

In announcing the new transition policy, the Department of

Health and Human Services said it had been devised ``in close

consultation with members of Congress,'' and it gave credit

to a number of Democrats in competitive races, including

Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Jeanne Shaheen of New

Hampshire and Mark Udall of Colorado.

So the reason that the White House goes time after time, all these delays, all this and that, is not to help the American people; it is not to help patients; it is not to help the providers of health care; it is not to help the taxpayers; it is to help a couple of Democratic Senators whom they name--whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services names as recipients of the help because the President is worried about Democrats losing elections this fall.

The Hill newspaper yesterday. ``New ObamaCare delay to help midterm Dems.'' Not to help Americans, not to help the people from my State who write letters about the concerns of their lives, not to help all of those people about whom my colleagues and I continue to come to the floor with letters to tell their stories, to tell about their lives, to tell about the pain they are suffering because of the health care law.

It is not about the failed Web site. We all know the Web site. The President said: It will be as easy to use as Amazon, cheaper than your cell phone bill. You will be able to keep your doctor--several days before the Web site opened and crashed. No, it is more than about the Web site. It is about people's lives. It is about if they are able to keep their doctor. It is about cuts to Medicare Advantage and hurting our seniors who are having a harder time getting doctors. It is about people paying higher premiums. It is about people having higher out-of- pocket costs, higher copays, higher deductibles. It is all of those things.

It is about hospitals in States that are not part of any of these exchanges, people in the communities cannot go there, they have to travel further distances. Nope, the President is not doing this for any of those reasons, not to help any of those people, he is doing it to help midterm Democrats because they are afraid they are going to lose their States, their majority, afraid they are going to be impacted and thrown out of office for absolutely reckless behavior on the part of a Congress that did not work in a bipartisan way, shoved the health care law down the throats of the American people in a way not to improve their lives, but to say that Congress knows better than people back home.

I am going to continue to come to the floor with letters and stories. I will be at the health fair in Buffalo, WY, on Saturday morning talking to folks in my community, seeing what they have to say about their lives, their families, their jobs, their wages, those of them who are losing jobs or losing hours as a result of the health care law, those who cannot afford new insurance under the exchanges even though they had insurance they liked--even though they did not like the price, it was cheaper than it is now. The President said it wasn't good enough for them.

I am going to continue to work for solutions to help patients all across this country have patient-centered care--not government-centered care or insurance company-centered care--to help patients get the care they need from a doctor they chose at lower cost--a complete failure by this administration and by this health care law.

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

Mr. President, a few years ago--actually in 2010-- President Obama announced something he called the National Export Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to double American exports in 5 years. That is right, double American exports in 5 years-- something certainly I support. It has been more than 4 years now, and it is pretty clear we are going to fall way short of the President's goal.

During his State of the Union Address this January, the President pledged once again to open new markets to American goods. The President specifically requested trade promotion authority. The very next day the Democrats' majority leader rejected the request. I come to the floor today to discuss how President Obama can increase American exports despite the opposition from his own party.

The President should focus on energy, and the President should take the steps needed to increase exports of American natural gas, oil, and coal. Energy exports are going to create good jobs here in America and reduce our Nation's trade deficit. American natural gas, our oil, and our coal exports will also reap important foreign policy benefits, such as helping nations in Europe such as Ukraine free themselves from Russian manipulation. That is what it is--Russian manipulation.

Last month the magazine The Economist published an article with the headline ``The petro-state of America: The energy boom is good for America and the world. It would be nice if Barack Obama helped a bit.'' That is from The Economist last month. The article explained that the United States may already have surpassed Russia as the world's largest oil and natural gas producer. The Economist went on to discuss the benefits of liquefied natural gas exports from the United States. It said that natural gas exports ``could generate tanker loads of cash''-- ``tanker loads of cash''--for America.

However, The Economist also pointed out that the process for obtaining the permits--the permits needed to export that American natural gas--is ``insanely slow.'' This is not an exaggeration. Over the past 3\1/2\ years the Department of Energy has used its discretion to approve only six applications to export liquefied natural gas. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is sitting on 24 other applications. Fourteen of those have been pending for more than 1 year, and two of them have been pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context, the United States has approved only two-thirds of the amount of liquefied natural gas exports that Canada has.

Last year I introduced a piece of legislation, S. 192, the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act. It is a bipartisan bill, with supporters on both sides of the aisle, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. This would require the Department of Energy to approve applications to export natural gas to members of NATO, to Japan, and to any other country where gas exports would promote U.S. national security interests. Think about the country of Ukraine. As Congress considers this legislation, President Obama should direct his Energy Department to expedite the existing permitting process. He should set firm deadlines for the Department in acting on pending applications.

These exports are going to create jobs all across this country--from natural gas fields in Wyoming, to steel mills in the Midwest, to ports along our coasts.

Liquefied natural gas exports will also help reduce our Nation's trade deficit, which stood at nearly $39 billion in December.

Finally, natural gas exports will help our allies in Europe. Ukraine imports about 60 percent of its natural gas from Russia. So what is Russia's position on this? Well, we know that Vladimir Putin--Russia had actually cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine twice before--in 2006 and in 2009. Earlier this

week the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia's state-owned energy giant, Gazprom, is now threatening to raise gas prices in the Ukraine. American natural gas exports could help Ukraine and other European countries reduce their dependence on Russia.

President Obama can also increase American exports by lifting the ban on exporting crude oil. The International Energy Agency estimates that the United States is going to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of crude oil by 2020. This really is a remarkable development, and it has happened because of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas production. It is estimated that unconventional oil and gas production is going to create up to 1.7 million new jobs in this country by 2020. But in January the International Energy Agency warned that the ban on crude oil exports-- the ban that exists on those exports--could impede American crude oil production.

If the President does not lift the export ban, he is going to put American oil production and thousands of jobs at risk. He will also pass up on an incredible opportunity--an opportunity to reshape the global oil market. For generations, Americans have been subject to the whims of the global oil market. Americans pay more at the pump when oil production goes offline, wherever it is located. American crude oil exports would boost the world's oil supply and help stabilize prices for American consumers.

American exports would also undermine the influence of oil-rich countries that do not like us very much. For years the United States has asked Japan and India to reduce their imports of Iranian oil. These are two of the world's largest oil importers--Japan and India. In 2012 Japan imported more than 4 percent of its oil from Iran. India imported about 8 percent of its oil from Iran. American crude oil exports could help cut off a vital supply of funding to the Iranian regime. If my colleagues are serious about ensuring that countries abide by U.S. sanctions on Iran, they should support American crude oil exports, not oppose them.

Finally, President Obama needs to promote exports of American coal. Like natural gas and oil, coal exports are going to create good jobs all across the country.

Over the last several years the Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to block American coal exports. The EPA is asking the Army Corps of Engineers to radically expand the environmental review process for new export terminals. It wants the Corps to consider the carbon emissions that would be produced by exports after they leave the United States. I want to repeat that. The EPA wants to block exports because of the carbon emissions the exports would produce when they are used after they leave the United States.

The National Association of Manufacturers says the EPA's actions would set ``a very dangerous precedent that could be used to block exports of all types.'' That includes exports of American automobiles, exports of civilian aircraft, exports of heavy equipment that we manufacture here in the United States.

To its credit, the Army Corps of Engineers has said it will not expand the environmental review process for new export terminals. President Obama should ensure that the Corps will complete its work in a timely manner and do so without interference from the EPA or any other agency.

President Obama is fond of saying he has a pen and he has a phone. He has boasted about ignoring the will of Congress. He seems to take delight in finding legal authority where he has none. President Obama should stop using his so-called authority that is authority he does not have, and he should start using authority he does have. He needs to use his authority to promote American exports. President Obama needs to lift restrictions on exports of natural gas and on oil and coal so Americans can get back to work and our country can regain its stature in the world.

The Budget

I also want to speak very briefly about another area where I think the President's administration is really not doing enough.

Yesterday the White House finally released the President's budget. This budget included no evidence of leadership and no sign that the President is ready to make a single responsible decision when it comes to Washington's out-of-control debt. The budget increases spending by $791 billion over the next 10 years. It is a 63-percent increase over where we are today--63 percent. It adds another $8.3 trillion of debt over the next decade. That is on top of $6.8 trillion in debt the President has already racked up. The President has never submitted a balanced budget in his life, and this one is no exception.

President Obama is now a lameduck President. That becomes more obvious every time he puts out a partisan political agenda such as this one instead of putting out a serious plan for how government should spend taxpayers' money. The President's budget does nothing to reform Washington's entitlement spending. Is this really the legacy the President wants to leave for America's young people?

The White House has called this plan ``Opportunity for All.'' There is no opportunity in this budget. It is just more debt, more taxes, more accounting gimmicks, budget tricks so the President does not have to make the tough, responsible decisions one would expect of the President of the United States.

On energy exports and on the budget, the President should be taking opportunities to solve some of the real challenges facing our country, not letting them pass him by.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I come to the floor also to talk about a letter I got from Wyoming from a constituent, Traci, who lives in Rock Springs, WY. She is very concerned about the health care law. It is interesting because she writes after hearing on the news last week a clip of Secretary Sebelius. It is a clip where Secretary Sebelius claims there is no indication that the ACA is responsible for any job loss.

Traci in Rock Springs, WY, sees Secretary Sebelius on television and wants to let the country know--and I am doing that for Traci today-- that the Secretary is wrong.

Traci says: ``My life is a prime example. Let me explain just how the ACA has destroyed my life.''

The quote she is referencing is Secretary Sebelius last week said: ``There is absolutely no evidence, and every economist will tell you this, that there is any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.''

It almost seems like a deliberate deception, an effort by the Secretary to mislead the American people, saying: Who are you going to believe, Secretary Sebelius or your own two eyes when you see what is happening in your own communities?

That is why Traci wrote to me from Rock Springs, WY.

Traci said she works full time. She also maintains a number of part- time jobs. She has a master's degree.

She says: ``Once the ACA was passed, I saw the writing on the wall, and so did the companies I work for.''

Isn't it interesting that Traci in Rock Springs, WY, could see the writing on the wall, the companies she worked for could see the writing on the wall, and yet the Democrats in this body who voted for this law couldn't see the writing on the wall.

She said she had health insurance and that these companies wouldn't have had to provide her with anything because she had insurance-- wouldn't have had to provide her with anything. But they didn't know who might and might not have insurance, and they weren't taking the chance that they would have to offer health care to a large number of people. So what these companies basically did, she said, was hire a specific number of individuals full time and thus those of us who remained part-time employees have been cut way back. This is obviously impacting her wages, her take-home pay, the things that matter to her, and it seems that Democrats, including Secretary Sebelius, couldn't care less.

It was interesting. I came to the floor yesterday with an article from the New York Times last week about all of these public jobs, people working for public schools, people working for community colleges, sanitation workers for communities, counties--all of these people having their hours cut, their take-home pay cut, their wages cut, and it is because of the health care law, specifically because of the health care law.

Traci continues:

I can't believe in a country my grandfather came to and

lived the American dream is actually actively trying to

prevent me from being able to do the work I want to do. The

kind of work I am good at. The kind of work that others

benefit from. What was the comment last week about how I am

being liberated from my job to do what I truly want.

It is astonishing. What she says is: I was doing what I truly wanted.

But yet, according to the Democrats, according to Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, she is now being

liberated from the job to do what she truly wants to do--when we have somebody with a master's degree, someone who loves to teach, and not being able to do what she truly wants to do.

Continuing:

And now this government is actually preventing me from what

I want to do, doing what I like to do, doing what I am meant

to do.

This is a woman in Wyoming doing what she wants to do, what she likes to do, what she wants to do, and was meant to do as a teacher--because of this health care law.

It is not only in Wyoming. I read a story on the floor yesterday of a school district in Connecticut, Meriden, CT, where the superintendent, who is on a national board of school districts, said: What am I supposed to do? If I am going to provide by law all of these part-time workers--who are working over 31 hours--health insurance, what I am going to have to do is fire five reading teachers. How can I make that decision and that tradeoff?

Instead, they cut their hours to less than 30 hours a week, but yet Kathleen Sebelius says there is absolutely no evidence relating to job loss in the Affordable Care Act.

My friend Traci writes: ``So Obama care--has cost me a lot of jobs, has cost me about half of my income.''

When the President of the United States is saying we need to raise the minimum wage, why is the President of the United States ignoring Traci, her income, her wages, and her take-home pay? Why is his health care law making her life worse?

She said: ``So Obama care--has cost me a lot of jobs, has cost me about half of my income.''

She continues:

And by the way I was one of those taxpayers that don't have

any deductions generally to take other than my mortgage, so

when you used to get a lot of taxes from me, by decreasing my

income in half, your tax revenue is decreasing in half as

well. So next time Sec. Sebelius claims that there are no

indications of any job loss, you can tell her that I have

lost multiple jobs and I am not being ``liberated.''

That is what the American people are facing. That is what the President of the United States denies every day when he refuses to give voice to the suffering that his health care law is causing all across this country in all 50 States. It is time that we work together, get solutions for the health care needs of this country, and not continue under what is happening with the President's health care law--which, case after case after case, is not yet giving the American people what he promised them and is giving them a lot worse. It is hurting their lives, it is hurting their health, and it is hurting their take-home pay.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Madam President, late in the day on Friday--after reporters had gone home for the weekend--the Obama administration quietly released its new Medicare Advantage payment rates. The cuts the President wants to make to this program are potentially devastating to millions of Americans.

The next morning the New York Times' headline read: ``U.S. Proposes Cuts to Rates in Payments for Medicare.''

Politico wrote about it too. They said:

The Obama Administration is proposing a major cut in 2015

payments to Medicare Advantage.

Fifteen million Americans depend on these health insurance plans the President wants to cut.

Instead of listening to seniors and investing in a program that works well, the Obama administration is doing everything conceivable to make sure Medicare Advantage fails.

Back in December the press gave President Obama the Lie of the Year Award for his statement that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Millions of people across America have now gotten letters saying their insurance plans are being canceled because of the Democrats' health care law. By cutting Medicare Advantage, I tell my colleagues, the Obama administration is now ensuring that even more Americans can't keep the health care plan they like.

Twenty-nine percent of all Medicare patients have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage. There is a reason for that. The Medicare Advantage Program lives up to its name by delivering clear advantages. The plans give extra benefits such as dental coverage, vision coverage, hearing benefits, wellness programs, and other benefits that are important to our seniors. Sometimes they offer smaller copayments, lower deductibles, and less out-of-pocket costs than the traditional Medicare Program does. Sometimes seniors even pay a higher monthly premium for these extra benefits, but often the benefits are financed through plan savings due to the programs and the way they work.

For many seniors Medicare Advantage is a good option. It is the right option for them. These are people who don't have a lot of money but who still want the peace of mind that comes with good health insurance. Those seniors are now facing much higher costs or lower benefits because of the Obama administration's decisions rolled out last Friday night. Because of this proposal and the administration's way to try to sneak it out on Friday, seniors are concerned and anxious about what the administration is also hiding.

Ever since the President and Democrats in Congress passed their health care law, they have been going after seniors who rely on Medicare. They raided a total of over $700 billion from Medicare--and we discussed that during the debate over the health care law. The money was taken from seniors on Medicare not to strengthen Medicare, not to secure the future of Medicare but to start a whole new government program for other people. There is a whole new bureaucracy, and it has been created by Washington Democrats in the health care law.

ObamaCare specifically targeted the Medicare Advantage Program, significant amounts of direct and indirect payment cuts totaling over $300 billion. That is 43 percent of the total Medicare cuts, just for this one program. So 29 percent of America's seniors rely on Medicare Advantage. Because about 29 percent of seniors on Medicare are in Medicare Advantage, they are responsible for 43 percent of the cuts.

Because of these cuts and other changes in the law, fewer private health care plans are going to be able to participate in Medicare Advantage in the future. That means a number of things. It means some people who rely on these plans are going to find out their plan is being canceled entirely. Some people in Iowa--thousands of people in Iowa--have already gotten letters canceling their Medicare Advantage plan.

The Kaiser Family Foundation looked at what the President's health care law does to seniors and they said that about a one-half million patients will lose their existing coverage--seniors on Medicare Advantage. These seniors are going to have fewer options to get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. More of these people are going to be forced into a one-size-fits-all government plan. They are going to lose the insurance they had, insurance they liked and that worked for them.

Some people may find their new insurance network doesn't include the doctors they had before. We have seen this happening all across the country. As the major provider of Medicare Advantage had to try to make it all work, they had to eliminate many doctors from their plans, so that those doctors are not going to be able to keep their patients and those patients are not going to be able to keep their doctors, in spite of what the President told the American people when he looked into the camera and said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

A lot of these people are going to see their costs increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation says the average out-of-pocket limit for Medicare Advantage plans is going to increase by $464 this year. The President and Washington Democrats said their health care plan was going to save people money. That is what the President told the country. That is why he said he did this whole health care law. He said it was going to save people money. That is what people wanted. The President told people what they wanted to hear, but he failed to give them what he promised. That is why his credibility ratings are down. That is why people believe he misled them intentionally, and that is why this administration is viewed to be incompetent by a majority of Americans. It turns out costs continue to go up because of the law.

This new round of cuts to Medicare Advantage is just another example of how the health care law is wrecking our health care system, not fixing it. America's health care system wasn't working before, but the President and the law Democrats voted for has made it worse.

Medicare is headed toward bankruptcy, but the Obama administration has rejected bipartisan solutions to reform and to strengthen the program. Through cuts such as the ones announced last Friday, the President's health care law takes money from Medicare and uses it to pay for something else.

There was actually a double data dump that occurred on Friday: the Medicare Advantage cuts that were announced late in the day, and then later than that the CMS--the Medicare/Medicaid services for the country--came out with their report and it reported that two-thirds of small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees would see their prices go up because of the health care law--two-thirds of small businesses. These are ones that by law don't have to provide health insurance--with employees of less than 50, they don't have to, by law, supply it, but they often do supply it. They do supply that insurance. I think about 17 million people get insurance that way, through work--businesses that are not mandated to supply the insurance, but they do it to get good workers. As a result, what they are seeing is that their rates are going up.

So that was part of the double data dump that occurred on Friday.

It was interesting to see a note that came out of the Democrats' lunch meeting today. It was just reported in Roll Call magazine. It said: ``A group of Senate Democrats is expected to launch a counteroffensive in favor of ObamaCare on Wednesday, a response to persistent attacks on the law from their Republican counterparts.''

First, I will point out the attacks on the law are coming from American citizens all around the country. It is what we hear at townhall meetings and it is what we hear as we travel around the country, people whose families are noting that they are paying more and getting less, losing their doctors and losing their insurance. But the report in Roll Call says:

Democrats discussed the new endeavor touting benefits of

the Affordable Care Act during Tuesday's weekly caucus lunch

to a warm reception, according to Connecticut's Christopher

S. Murphy, who is one of the senators leading the effort. A

Senate Democrat aide said the formal rollout will come

Wednesday.

I welcome the opportunity to hear what the Democrats have to say because the damage being done by this health care law to people all across the country is significant.

It is interesting because all we need to do is turn to Friday's New York Times, Robert Pear, an excellent writer for the Times, who had, I thought, a fascinating story. He took two pages of the paper: ``Public Sector Capping Part-Time Hours . . . '' Public sector capping part-time hours. Why? Right here in the headline: ``to Skirt Health Care Law.''

Let me start: ``Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country''--we are not talking about businesses or fast food chains; we are talking about cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country--``have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees . . .'' Why? ``to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say. The cuts to public sector employment, which has failed to rebound since the recession''--it says right here-- ``could serve as a powerful political weapon for Republican critics of the health care law, who claim it is creating a drain on the economy.''

It is creating a drain on the economy. We have two folks in the picture in Medina, OH, working on a trash truck. One of the gentlemen talks about his hours being limited to 29 hours. He called it ``a hit to his wallet.''

The President is fighting to talk about raising the minimum wage, when people are actually losing take-home pay. It is impacting their wages, the health care law is. It is impacting how much money they take home at the end of the week.

The next page talks about somebody who works as a clerk in the parks department saw her hours drop from 38 a week to 35 and then to 29. Why? Because of the health care law and the 30-hour limit.

It is interesting to go through the list of the different jobs of people who are losing hours, who want to work. These are hard-working Americans who are having their hours cut--public sector workers, people who work for cities, counties, public schools, community colleges. The list goes on: police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers, and part-time professors; office clerks, sanitation workers, park inspectors--all in all, people who are being hurt because of the President's health care law and the mandates and the way it is put together by this President and the Democrats who voted for it.

It is interesting to see the Senator from Connecticut mentioned here as leading the effort, and I would recommend to him this article by Robert Pear in Friday's New York Times, who goes specifically to the core of what is happening in Connecticut, in that Senator's home State. It says:

Mark Benigni, the superintendent of schools in Meriden,

CT--a public school, public sector--and a board member of the

American Association of School Administrators said in an

interview that the new health care law is having ``unintended

consequences for school systems across the Nation.''

This health care law is full of unintended consequences. Now we have someone who is a board member for the American Association of School Administrators saying that the health care law is having unintended consequences for school systems across the Nation. He specifically says, in Connecticut, as in many States--this is the article now:

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.

Quoting the superintendent in schools in Meriden, CT:

Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers? Are we

supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we can provide

insurance coverage to part-time employees?

The superintendent goes on to say:

If I had to cut five reading teachers to pay for health

benefits for substitute teachers, I am not sure that would be

best for our students.

So I would ask the President of the United States: What do you want? These are the choices that because of your health care law, crammed down the throats of the American people, you are asking the public sector of our country to make. Get rid of five reading teachers in Meriden, CT, to pay for expensive health insurance policies for substitute teachers. That superintendent is trying to say, I am not sure that what the law requires would be best for our students.

I think this law was not well-thought-out, was not well planned. So I will be interested tomorrow to see Senate Democrats come to the floor with their ObamaCare PR counteroffensive and explain to the American people why they are being faced with a disastrous Web site rollout 4 days after the President told the American people it will be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill and you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. Let them explain why 5 million people then got letters from insurance companies saying their insurance policies have been canceled; why the Web site failure is just the tip of the iceberg that the American people are seeing right now in terms of premiums going up, canceled policies, can't keep their doctor, higher out-of-pocket costs, higher copays, higher deductibles, all in spite of the President's glowing promises which, in my opinion, were made to deceive the American people in an effort to pass a health care law which many people see as bad for patients, bad for providers, and bad for the taxpayers.

I will continue to come to the floor and talk about what I hear as I go home to Wyoming each week in terms of a health care law which is not providing the patients what they asked for, what they need, and what they were promised.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to speak about one of Wyoming's greatest World War II heroes, the Rev. Leonard Robinson. Leonard is a special man whose sacrifice speaks louder than his words.

In 1942, less than 1 year after shipping out from Fort Bliss, TX, Robinson found himself among 75,000 American and Filipino soldiers and civilians surrendered to the Imperial Japanese Army. He was one of the fortunate to survive the barbaric 65 mile, 5-day Bataan Death March. Those who were unable to keep up with the march were either beaten or shot by Japanese soldiers.

Robinson was held as a prisoner of war for almost 3\1/2\ years. He survived the Bataan Death March, disease, malnutrition, slave labor and torture through his faith in God. Both spiritually and physically, Reverend Robinson credits the Bible with saving his life during his time as a prisoner of war. It is through his faith that he persevered through one of the greatest atrocities committed against our soldiers.

As a prisoner of war, Leonard would often recite Psalm 23 to get him through his struggle. Rev. Leonard Robinson's life has been a journey of war, suffering, hope and peace. Leonard embraced faith in his darkest hours, showed a commitment to duty when all else was lost, and held dear to the memory of his brothers in arms who did not return. In his battered billfold, Leonard kept a roster of his unit and the names of the fallen soldiers. He is a living testament to the often overlooked sacrifices that make our men and women in uniform America's greatest treasure.

Today, Reverend Robinson is being honored at the Casper Area Chamber of Commerce ``Hiring a Hero'' luncheon. The event's goal is to promote veteran employment through recognizing our service men and women who have triumphed over adversity with a proven ability to overcome challenges and obstacles through strength and determination. I do not know of a better example than my friend and my surgical patient Rev. Leonard Robinson. He epitomizes the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Madam President, I come to the floor week after week and talk about the President's health care

law. As a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, I am here to give a doctor's second opinion about the law. As we continue to learn more and more and see more and more, I am concerned about how the law affects my former patients, the doctors and nurses who take care of those patients, and the taxpayers who, of course, have been impacted as well.

It has been clear for a long time that this health care law is not working. It has been obvious from the beginning that this law would not work out the way the Democrats had promised the American people it would work out. Republicans had warned that it was a terrible idea, and even some Democrats have admitted this law has been a train wreck.

The Obama administration has been desperate to talk about anything but the failure of the health care law, and they have been desperate to hide some of the biggest problems with the law. The President has unilaterally made one change after another--sometimes with, in my opinion, no legal authority to do so--and tried to do this in a way that, perhaps, nobody would even notice.

Late yesterday the administration leaked word that it would delay again the law's unpopular employer mandate. It was the second time the Obama administration had changed the health care law in just a few days.

On the front page of USA Today, above the fold: ``Health law faces new delay.''

The Wall Street Journal: ``Health-Law Mandate Put Off Again.''

The Washington Post reported on modifications over the weekend. This is from Saturday: ``Administration to allow some changes to health-care plans.'' That article says:

The Obama administration has quietly reworked rules and

computer code for HealthCare.gov to try to stem an outpouring

of discontent--

``an outpouring of discontent''--

by . . . Americans who have discovered that the health plans

they bought do not include their old doctors or allow them to

add new babies or spouses.

So the administration then sent out a 14-page memo to insurance companies with changes to how its Web site works and new rules for how people can buy coverage.

The Washington Post article goes on to say:

The changes reflect recent work--still underway--to improve

the computer system for the marketplace, as well as fresh

thinking about the needs of people who are buying the

coverage.

``Fresh thinking about the needs of people who are buying the coverage''? Did the administration not think of these people before they wrote all of these things? The Obama administration has been working on this Web site for 4 years. Do they not talk to people and think about people and lives? I know a lot of these folks who work for the administration have gone right from college to graduate or law school and then right into some cubicle on the administration's payroll. Do they have no clue about how the real world works?

It is worse than that. On Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama sat down for an interview, and he was asked about the failure of his health care Web site, healthcare.gov--the Web site. This is what he said:

It got fixed within a month and half, it was up and running

and now it's working the way it's supposed to.

I do not think many people around the country who have gone on this Web site even today believe it is working the way it is supposed to.

The President was with Bill Clinton in September at the Clinton Forum, and President Obama said: Easier to use than Amazon, cheaper to buy than your cell phone bill. I assume the President actually believed that. I assume the President believes it is working the way it is supposed to today. But I think that is the reason the President's poll numbers are so low--because the American people say the President is out of touch with what the American people are seeing in their own homes and in their own communities, and the President in the White House has very little realization of what is happening in America. So according to the President, healthcare.gov is now working the way it is supposed to work.

Well, if that is true, why did we learn a week later that there are another 14 pages of rules changes and changes to the Web site? Did the President not have a clue that they were even coming? Why do we learn now that their work is ``still underway,'' trying to think about the needs of people who have been forced to buy insurance through this Web site?

Back in December the press gave President Obama the lie of the year award for his statement that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Well, when the President says that his Web site is working the way it is supposed to, either he continues to be in denial or he has another entry for this year's lie of the year.

On Sunday, Bob Schieffer on ``Face the Nation'' asked about the latest rules changes. Those were the rules changes that were before Sunday, not the ones that came out yesterday. The President has changed these rules now over two dozen times.

Bob Schieffer said: ``Things just seem, in every day and every way, to be more confused.'' This is Bob Schieffer, who for years, as the face of ``Face the Nation,'' has become a trusted person whom people turn to. As he says in a reasonable way, things just seem, in every day and every way, to be more confused. He then asked: ``Is there any hope of getting it straightened out?'' That is what Bob Schieffer asked-- ``any hope of getting it straightened out?''

Well, the majority party whip was on the show. The Democratic Senator was on the show, and instead of answering the question, he avoided it. He tried to change the subject, and he repeated an old Democratic talking point. This time that Senator claimed that ``10 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it''--this is the Democratic Senator--without the President's law--not actually responding to the question from Bob Schieffer about whether we can get things straightened out--no, not at all, not answering whether there is any hope of getting the law straightened out, just the same old talking points, and the talking points are not even true.

The Washington Post Fact Checker said the statement was so wrong, it deserved four Pinocchios--the most you can get. Well, that is the highest number possible--four Pinocchios. The Washington Post called the Democratic Senator's claim ``simply ridiculous.''

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the American people signing up under the Obama health care law already had health insurance, so they are actually not getting new insurance or are newly insured because of the law. These are people who got cancellation letters and then said: Uh-oh, I need to get insurance. So then they went to the Web site to buy something--often much more expensive, requiring higher copays, higher deductibles. The law forced them to lose the coverage they had and the coverage that actually had worked for them.

Many people are paying far more now than they were for worse coverage, and it is not the right fit for their families. They are often paying for insurance which they are not going to use, do not want, which is more than they would ever need, and they are paying more than they ever had intended. That is what I hear when I talk to people in Wyoming. I was in Wyoming--in Cheyenne and Casper--this weekend. That is what I hear at home. The administration does not want to talk about that. Democrats in Washington do not want to talk about it at all. They just want to repeat their talking points even though they are completely false and have been proven to be false. Democrats want to avoid the tough questions about how the law has failed. They rely on denial and deception.

The Web site still is not working in spite of what the President may have said on Super Bowl Sunday. The law is not working. The answer to the question is, No, there is no hope of getting it straightened out. The Web site problems we have seen are just the tip of the iceberg.

People are paying higher premiums. Coverages are canceled. People cannot keep their doctors. Fraud and identity theft are going to continue to be a plague of this health care Web site. People are paying higher copays and deductibles.

It has been reported, interestingly enough, that in California, with the so-

called navigators--the people who are the certified navigators--over 40 of them are convicted criminals. Forty convicted criminals were hired and certified--certified--to be navigators in California in spite of the fact that people are being asked to give personal information, health information, financial information to these navigators. So it is no surprise that we are going to continue to see issues of fraud and identity theft.

Another interesting thing we learned recently: The Congressional Budget Office came out with its new estimates about the health care law and its effect on parts of the economy and on jobs. It also talked about the number of people who do not have insurance. It said that in the year 2024--10 years from now--there will be 31 million Americans who will be uninsured: Ten years from now, 31 million Americans uninsured.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 minutes.

Let's think about the speech the President gave in 2009. He came to Congress. He wanted to talk about health care reform. He talked about why it was so urgent that the Congress pass health care reform. He said: ``There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.'' So in 2009 the President said 30 million Americans could not get coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office just comes out and says: Ten years in the future--15 years after the President gives his speech--31 million Americans with no insurance. Yet we will have spent trillions of dollars, and yet it will not fix so big of a problem that we know we need to deal with--health care in America--and this present law, this enormous law, this 2,700-page law, has completely failed to deal with the reason the President said we had to deal with this in 2009. Fifteen years later, the same numbers--30 million; over 30 million in 2024. How is that a victory for uninsured Americans? How can the President say this law has succeeded? How is it a sign that the health care law is working in the way it is supposed to work?

On top of that, middle-class people all across the country are paying more because of the health care law. Their premiums have gone up. Their deductibles have gone up. Their copayments have gone up. Millions of hard-working Americans have had their insurance policies canceled because of the law. And the administration is still working on the Web site, in spite of what the President may say about it.

The President says it is working as it is supposed to. On this and so many issues, the President continues to be wrong, and the American people see it. The Web site is not working. The health care law clearly is not working. It is not working the way he promised. It is not working the way the American people need health care to work for them in this country.

It is time for the administration to stop sneaking out these changes under the cover of darkness, in blog posts. If the President is going to make a change, why doesn't he come and tell the American people what he is going to do?

It is time for the Democrats to stop the four-Pinocchio talking points. It is time for folks to be honest about the failings of the health care law. It is time to eliminate this terrible health care law and replace it with real reform that gives people better access to quality, affordable health care--the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this past Sunday before the Super Bowl, President Obama sat down for an interview.

The President was asked about the failure of his healthcare.gov Web site. He talked about how there are always glitches with technology. But then he said this about the Web site:

It got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and

running and now it's working the way it's supposed to.

According to the President of the United States, healthcare.gov is now ``working the way it's supposed to.'' The President of the United States is in denial.

This is an incredible statement that he has made. I find it especially hard to believe, when I looked at the Washington Post the next morning--on Monday, the day after the President's interview where he said ``it's working the way it's supposed to.''

Then look at the headline on the front page of the Washington Post on Monday, ``Health site can't handle appeals.'' Thousands of requests for fixes were filed but unprocessed.

Is this what the President of the United States means when he says now ``it's working the way it's supposed to?'' Is the President oblivious to what is happening in this country with his signature piece of legislation? According to this article:

Tens of thousands of people who discovered that

HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a

health care plan are confronting a new roadblock: The

government cannot yet fix the errors.

The President may think it is perfect, but there are a lot of errors with his Web site. To say it is working the way it is supposed to, to me, cites Presidential denial.

``About 22,000 Americans,'' the article says. Is this what President Obama means when he says the Web site is working ``the way it's supposed to''? I am talking about the front page of the Washington Post, above the fold. One woman quoted in the article says that because of a mistake by the Web site, she is paying $100 a month more than she should and her deductible is $4,000 too high. She said she needed the insurance, and now she is stuck.

Is this what President Obama thought the Web site was supposed to do? Was it supposed to overcharge this woman $100 a month and set her deductible too high by $4,000? Was it supposed to prevent her from appealing that mistake?

You are stuck with it. The mistake was made by the Web site. You are stuck. This is what the President seems to think.

Here is another headline which ran on Monday, the day after the President's interview. This was in the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska. It says, ``Enroll Alaska mistakenly releases hundreds of e-mail addresses.''

Alaska is one of the States which doesn't use their own exchange. They are part of the Federal exchange which uses healthcare.gov.

The article says:

Enroll Alaska mistakenly released about 300 email addresses

Monday afternoon when an employee sent out a mass message

about a healthcare.gov glitch without masking its recipients.

So, No. 1, there was a glitch. Remember, the President says now ``it's working the way it's supposed to.'' So there was a glitch; they sent out an email explaining the glitch, and they end up releasing all of the people's personal email addresses when they are trying to point out to the incompetence of the Web site in the first place. Is this the way President Obama thinks things are supposed to work with his Web site?

This is the kind of security issue many of us have been worried about from the beginning. People have to provide a lot of their personal information in this Web site--financial information, health information, Social Security number, demographic information. There is not enough assurance the information is being properly protected.

So this time they sent out people's email addresses. Maybe next time they

will send out people's Social Security numbers, their health information, their financial information or other personal information.

That is not even talking about the lack of security on the Web site and whether hackers can break in and steal information. This is just human error, carelessness, and what people connected to the site are sending out by mistake. It is a very real concern.

For the President to not take this seriously--and I believe he doesn't take it seriously. I believe he has his head in the sand on all of this, and he has dug in on this law. For the President to not take this seriously and say that everything is going ``the way it's supposed to'' is a very real problem with the man in the White House.

That is just the Web site. That is what the President was talking about in the interview. What else about the health care law is working the way it is supposed to, I ask the Presiding Officer.

Is it the millions of people who will be dropping out of the labor force because of the law? On Tuesday morning, the Congressional Budget Office said that is exactly what is going to happen.

Here is how the papers reported it:

The New York Times, ``Health Care Law Projected to Cut the Labor Force.''

The Wall Street Journal, ``Health Law to Cut Into Labor Force.''

Here is how The Hill put it, ``ObamaCare will cost 2.5M workers by 2024.''

Is this the way the Obama administration thinks its health care law is supposed to work? They are actually saying, yes, it is. Jason Furman, the President's top economist, said the health care law ``is helping labor markets, is helping businesses, and is helping jobs.''

Helping labor markets?

Because of the failed policies of the Obama administration, we have the lowest labor force participation rate in 35 years. People have given up looking for work. The administration should be doing all it can to increase the labor force participation, not celebrating that its health care law is going to push that number even lower.

Middle-class Americans all across this country have seen their insurance premiums go up significantly because of the health care law's costly mandates. They have seen their deductibles go up. Millions of hard-working Americans have had their insurance policies canceled. Why? Because of the law.

Now we are seeing people's personal information put at risk and we are seeing the damage the law is doing to the labor force.

President Obama says, ``It's working just the way it's supposed to.'' The President is wrong. The Web site is not working and his health care law isn't working. It is not working for the American people.

The Web site is just the tip of the iceberg. People are finding they can't keep their insurance even if they like it. The front page story today of the Wall Street Journal: It is harder to keep your doctor, even if you want to keep your doctor, in spite of the President's promise.

We have millions who have had their policies canceled, others losing their doctors. We have seen premium costs go up, we have seen deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses go up and the issue of security fraud.

The Web site is a problem. The Web site failure is just a tip of the iceberg. It is time to get rid of this terrible health care law and replace it with real reform before it does additional damage to America's labor force and to the American people.

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

Last week President Obama came to Congress and delivered the State of the Union Address. He admitted that under the Obama economy too many Americans are still out of work. The President didn't admit that his policies were to blame, but he did promise to act. He said: ``Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I am going to do.'' What the President promised all of us he promised the country last week.

I believe the President could start by coming clean about how his health care law is hurting jobs and harming middle-class Americans.

Just this morning, the Congressional Budget Office put out their estimate that the President's health care law will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.3 million people by the year 2021. That includes people who will lose their jobs, people who will have their hours cut, and mostly people who will decide not to work. This is one of the perverse incentives in this terrible law. It actually encourages able- bodied people to not work. We are already faced with the lowest labor force participation rate we have seen in 35 years and this number they have come out with--over 2 million fewer jobs in our economy. When we were debating the health care in the Senate and the CBO came out with their estimate based on the way they read the law before it went into effect, they said this could negatively impact jobs and the economy to the tune of 800,000. Now we are at 2\1/2\ times that many--over 2 million fewer jobs--and as a result specifically of the health care law. We should be doing all we can to increase labor force participation. The health care law actually pushes it in the opposite direction.

The Congressional Budget Office also said this morning that the health care law will provide health insurance to 2 million fewer people this year than previous estimates had expected. One of the main reasons Democrats insisted they needed to pass this law in the first place was to cover uninsured people. Now the Congressional Budget Office doesn't even expect it to do the job the Democrats intended it to do very well.

The law is raising costs, it is hurting middle-class Americans, and not even helping the people the Democrats told us it was going to help in the first place. President Obama promised last week to act and to do something to

create jobs. What we see is this health care law is actually reducing jobs and reducing the number of people working. There are other things the President could do to help create jobs. The first thing, though, would be to work with Republicans to help repeal the health care law and come up with reforms that will actually work.

He could also look at a number of the options on the energy front that would help the private sector create jobs--no government money needed.

The President says he wants to do things that don't require legislation. Without any legislation at all, the President could approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and expand opportunity for thousands of American families.

Over the past 5 years, a small number of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats, and environmental activists have made a living over haggling about the pipeline. Meanwhile, the President has turned his back on middle-class people who are in need of jobs, desperate need of jobs--people living in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, other States.

TransCanada submitted its application for a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline more than 5 years ago. Ever since, President Obama has wasted America's time and money grasping for excuses in order for him to be able to reject it.

The State Department's latest environmental review confirms yet again that the pipeline shows no significant environmental impact, and it will support more than 42,000 jobs. Last summer, the President sneered at those jobs. He said they were just ``a blip relative to the need.'' For out-of-work Americans, those jobs are more than a blip. For them, this is more than a pipeline, it is a lifeline. It is way past time for President Obama to quit stalling and to finally do the right thing for those Americans.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yet the Obama administration has been doing the same thing over and over.

We have had a draft environmental impact statement. We have had a supplemental environmental impact statement, we have had a final environmental impact statement, then we have had a draft supplemental impact statement, and Friday we had the final supplemental environmental impact statement.

People at home listening to this would say why would it take 2 years--and it did, it took 2 years--to go from the supplemental draft environmental impact to the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. It makes no sense at all. This is the fifth report by the State Department and the conclusion is always the same. They could do this report another 5 times or another 50 times. The result is still going to be the same. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. The cost is no significant environmental impact. The benefits are at least 42,000 jobs and a chance to reduce our dependence on overseas oil.

Now that the complaints from the far-left environmental extremists have been debunked, what do they say? According to the news reports, some will have protests and some are planning lawsuits. The Washington Post had a story this Sunday entitled ``For pipeline, the `gut check' moment.'' It talked about some of the fanatical anti-energy protesters who refuse to accept the science. They want to pressure the President and Secretary of State Kerry to make sure these jobs never get created. This is one good quote: ``Neva Goodwin, co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University and a contributor to Kerry's past campaigns, said that she will be opposing the pipeline in another way.''

The article quotes her as saying: ``I am working with an informal network of political donors that will be pushing Kerry to do the right thing.''

Political donors and activists on the left are committed to killing this pipeline, regardless of the science, regardless of the middle- class jobs, and regardless of what is in the best interests of the country.

I find it astonishing that former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said yesterday, on this very point, what about the science, what about the cost-benefit analysis. President Obama's former Secretary of Energy said yesterday: ``The decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one, not a scientific one.'' So much for the President of the United States saying the decision would be based on science.

The President's activist base will be mobilizing and fighting against good American jobs. So what does the administration itself say? It says it wants to wait for some more opinions.

The White House Chief of Staff said Sunday that the President wants officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department, and other agencies to tell him what they think. I know what the former Secretary of Energy thought. He said the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political decision, not a scientific one.

You don't need to look any further. Look at the history of the project. TransCanada applied to build this pipeline more than 5 years ago. The Obama administration has set deadlines and said it would make a decision. First, it was the end of 2011; then it was after the election in 2012; and then it was at the end of 2013. That is what President Obama promised Republican Senators when he met with us last March. The administration has missed every deadline, broken every promise. It is interesting because the last time the Senate voted on the subject, 17 Democrats joined every Republican to support the pipeline.

The Obama administration is still trying to find a way to evade and to avoid having to make a decision. This really ought to be embarrassing to an administration. President Obama was elected to make decisions. The science is settled. The President should be embarrassed when his former Secretary of Energy says the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one and not a scientific one.

Any objections have been heard; they have been answered. There are no more excuses. It is time for the President to make up his mind. Is he going to follow the science or just the politics? He should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. He should do it now. He should do the job he was elected to do so middle-class Americans can do the jobs they desperately want to do.

Madam President, I yield the floor.