Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the advice and consent duties of the Senate. Our Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise the President on high-level executive positions and judgeships. The Senate is also asked to consent on those appointments to ensure that only those who are worthy of the public's trust hold positions of such great power. The confirmation process is a way to protect the American people from nominees who simply aren't up to the job or to the times we are in as a country.

It is also an important opportunity for the Senate to exercise oversight over the agencies and the policies of an administration and to do this on behalf of the American people. Let me repeat that. It is about exercising oversight on behalf of the American people.

This is one of the most important roles we play as Senators. This is one of the reasons our Nation's Founding Fathers intentionally made the pace of the Senate deliberate. They wanted to make sure there was free debate on important subjects so we could give appropriate consideration to policies, to laws, and to nominations.

The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, explained the Senate's role was ``first to protect the people against their rulers.''

``First to protect the people against their rulers'' was the point of this body. That is why, over its long history, the Senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections for political minorities.

Lately some in the majority have decided the American people shouldn't ask so many questions and the minority shouldn't have so many rights. Here is a little perspective on the conversation we are having today. Over the last 6 years Majority Leader Reid has taken an unprecedented stand against the rights of the minority in this body. He has done it through procedural tactics such as filling the amendment tree on bills and bypassing committees using something called rule XIV of the Senate rules. Those techniques may make it easier for the majority leader to get what he wants, but they shut many Senators out of legislating, and they shut out the Americans we represent, Democrats as well as Republicans.

At the beginning of the last Congress and again at the start of this Congress, there was an attempt to use the so-called nuclear option and to use it to radically change the rules of the Senate and to strip the rights of the minority. Back in 2011, Majority Leader Reid made a commitment not to use the nuclear option.

On the floor he said:

I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the

Senate rules other than through the regular order.

He said this Congress or the next Congress, so that includes the Congress we are in right now today.

It didn't stop some of the members of his caucus from trying to force the nuclear option again earlier this year. I was one of a bipartisan group of Senators--eight of us--who worked together and negotiated, I thought, responsible changes to Senate procedures. Our goal was to avoid the rush that would take drastic steps that would damage this body and our country forever. It was a fair agreement.

It was also an agreement that we were told would rule out the use of the nuclear option. So Republicans agreed to support two new standing orders and two new standing rules of the Senate. Those changes were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in this body.

In return, the majority leader again gave his word he would not try to break the rules in order to change the rules. Here is what he said a few months ago on the Senate floor: ``Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process.''

He even added this included considerations by the Rules Committee. There was no equivocating in the statement by the Democratic leader. There were no ifs, ands, or buts. This was January 24 of this year. Here we are again, less than 5 months later, and we are having this same argument.

Some Senate Democrats want to use the nuclear option to break the rules, to change the rules, and do away with the right to extended debate on nominations. This would be an unprecedented power grab by the majority. It would gut the advice and consent function of the Senate. It would trample the rights of the minority. It would deprive millions of Americans of their right to have their voices heard through their representatives here in Washington. The nuclear option would irreparably change this institution.

Republicans have raised principled objections to a select few of the President's nominees. In other cases, such as the DC Circuit Court, we simply want to apply the standard the Democrats had set, that the court's workload doesn't justify the addition of three more judges.

The President claims his nominees have been treated unfairly. Even the Washington Post's Fact Checker said the President's comments were untrue. The other day the Post Fact Checker gave the President not just one but two Pinocchios for his claims about Republican delays on his judicial nominees.

The White House and the majority leader don't want to hear it. They want the Senate to rubberstamp the President's nominees. The Democrats aren't happy with the rulings by the DC Circuit Court, and they want to avoid any more inconvenient questions about the Obama administration. Democrats claim they want to change the rules to make things move more quickly, but that is no excuse. Remember when the majority leader threatened the same drastic step a couple of years ago? One of the Democrats who stood up to oppose the current majority leader at the time was former Senator Chris Dodd. In his farewell speech in this body in late 2010, this is what Senator Dodd had to say:

I can understand the temptation to change the rules that

make the Senate so unique--and, simultaneously, so

frustrating. But whether such a temptation is motivated by a

noble desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure

political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

This was a Democratic Senator with 30 years of service in the Senate.

The reality is the pace of the Senate can be deliberate. Extended debate and questioning of nominees is a vital tool to help ensure the men and women who run our government are up to the job and are held accountable.

Under the system some in the majority want to impose, there will be less opportunity for political minorities to question nominees. There will be less government transparency. The faith of the American people in their government will get smaller and smaller.

I believe it would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to pursue the nuclear option and an irresponsible abuse of power. From the beginning the American political system has functioned on majority rule but with strong minority rights. Democracy is not winner-take-all. Senator Reid gave his word. We negotiated in good faith earlier this year. We reached a bipartisan agreement to avoid the nuclear option. Using the nuclear option on nominations now would unfairly disregard that agreement. If Democrats break the rules to change the rules, political minorities and all Americans will lose.

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 that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, speak after me for up to 10 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I come to the floor today as millions of students in high school and colleges across the country have recently graduated. I had an opportunity to attend a number of commencements across Wyoming to speak to a number of students who were graduating. I note that President Obama has also been out giving graduation speeches this year. At Ohio State University, the President criticized those of us who warn that government does not always have the best answer. The President suggested that anyone who thinks Washington has grown too inefficient or too ineffective is somehow opposed to democracy entirely. That is what President Obama told new college graduates. It is absurd, but that is exactly what he had to say. He told them he wants to give everyone, as he says, ``a fair shake.'' What he did not tell these young people, these young men and woman, is that his policies--the policies he has been promoting and passing--have actually been hurting them and millions of other young Americans.

He made no mention of the heavy burdens he has heaped on their backs, or the damage his policies have done to our economy. President Obama did not say anything about it, but those graduates are actually going to figure it out very quickly. They are going to see what they are getting from President Obama is not at all a fair shake.

The first thing they will notice is how difficult it is for them to find a good job in the Obama economy. One of the things the Wall Street Journal had to say in an article by Dan Henninger:

In Campaign 2012, Barack Obama promised the youth vote a

rose garden. What they've got instead, as far as the eye can

see, is an employment wasteland.

According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the unemployment rate for Americans under age 24 is 16.2 percent. Their study estimated that even when this group eventually starts earning a paycheck, these young Americans, they will collectively suffer reduced earnings of about $20 billion over the next decade. It works out to about $22,000 for each one of those young men and young women.

The Center for American Progress, which did this study and did this report, is actually a very liberal think tank. Here is what else they said: ``Employment prospects for young Americans are dismal.'' This is what the liberal think tank is saying. ``The employment prospects for young Americans are dismal by both historical and by international comparisons.''

We know young people who do find jobs are often stuck with part-time work. What they are looking for is a career. It has been nearly 4 years since the recession ended. Since then we have had a much weaker economic recovery than we should have. In the first quarter of this year alone, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.4 percent. Wages have continued to stagnate. The average work week continues to shrink.

Why would that be? Why would we see wages stagnating? Why would the average work week shrink? Why are employment prospects so dismal for young Americans? One big reason is the weight of government regulations on our economy. Businesses want to grow. They want to hire. But they have been buried under a mountain of new rules and Washington mandates.

So far in 2013, the Obama administration has released more than 32,000 pages of new regulations. All of that new redtape is strangling our economy and making it tougher for businesses to create jobs for these young graduates.

One part of this--and I have warned about it before--is the new mandate in the President's health care law. It says businesses with 50 or more full-time workers have to provide expensive government-approved health insurance. The law does not say ``expensive'' government- approved health insurance, but the government-approved health insurance is turning out to be expensive.

A lot of us on this side of the aisle predicted the President's mandates

were going to do terrible things to the economy. Well, that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what happened. It is one of the reasons we have had such weak job creation. The new jobs we do get, well, they are concentrated in businesses that basically use hourly workers.

I have come to the floor and talked about one small business after another that is saying they are keeping workers to less than 30 hours. That usually hits people without work experience. It hits people like new graduates, just starting out, especially hard. Of course, the President didn't mention any of that at his graduation speeches.

There is another thing the President hasn't told young people. It has to do with the sticker shock a lot of them are going to have when they try to buy health insurance. One reason is because the health care law forces young healthy people to pay more so that older sicker people can pay less. Another reason is because the Obama administration has come up with a long list of things insurance policies have to cover. Remember, none of these extras is free; they are just prepaid at higher premiums. Young people won't be able to just get the insurance they want that is right for them or that they can afford. No. Now they will have to pay for the Obama administration mandated and approved health insurance. It is going to be much more expensive, and it may actually do them no medical good.

Why should Washington tell a single 23-year-old woman she has to pay for prostate cancer screening? Why should a 22-year-old man with no children have to pay for a plan that covers pediatric eye exams? Young people don't need many of these mandated services, they do not want them, and they don't want to pay for them. Yet they are mandated to buy them. Again, President Obama is making young people pay more for health insurance so that someone else might pay less.

How much more are they going to have to pay? Well, according to one survey of insurance companies, younger and healthier people can expect average premium increases of 169 percent next year. While some people are going to get government subsidies to help cover part of this extra cost, not everyone will. Even with the subsidies, a lot of young people are still going to pay much more than they would have without the President's health care law. We haven't heard the President talk much about that during his graduation speeches.

Young people and future generations have already been saddled with $6 trillion in new debt since President Obama took office. Washington's debt is now more than $53,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. These are people who will end up spending the rest of their lives paying higher taxes to cover that debt and the interest on the debt. President Obama's latest budget called for young people to pay even more by increasing the debt another $7 trillion over the next decade. That is something else he didn't happen to tell young people during his graduation speeches.

That doesn't mean Washington Democrats are keeping quiet. According to an article by Bloomberg, they are trying hard to sell the President's health care law. Here is how they put it in the article by Bloomberg:

The White House has told all cabinet members and senior

officials to use commencement speeches to drive home for

graduating college students and their parents the benefits

they gain from a provision of the law that allows young

adults to stay on their families' insurance plans until they

turn 26.

Other Democrats are trying to say the same thing. Nancy Pelosi sent out a 78-page booklet telling Democrats in the House how to spin this unpopular health care law. I have a copy of it here. It is astonishing. Roll Call wrote about it the other day. The article is entitled ``Democrats Unleash a Binder Full of Obamacare Messaging.'' One of the suggestions was to find one or two young adults in your district who are now on their parents' plan because of the new law. That is what Nancy Pelosi is recommending to the Democrats. That is the sales pitch. The President wants young people to believe they are getting free insurance. He doesn't want them to see all the ways the health care law is going to hurt them. That is what the President is telling young people. That is his message. That is what he wants other Washington Democrats to tell everyone too.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is leading the cheers. She says she plans to travel around the country to spread the word about enrollment. The enrollment she is talking about is trying to get people to sign up for the health care law's insurance exchanges. She especially needs young healthy people to sign up for the exchanges, such as these new graduates. In the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel spelled out why in an op-ed. Remember, he was one of the President's top advisers in creating the health care law. He is also the brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This is what he had to say. He wrote that young people ``are bewildered about the health care reform in general and exchanges in particular.'' The title is ``Health Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles.''

Just yesterday the Los Angeles Times front page read ``Young adults a hurdle for health act.'' Dr. Emanuel is concerned these young people won't see the Obama exchanges as being in their best interest. Well, of course they won't see it as being in their best interest, and that is because the exchanges are not in their best interest. That is why the Los Angeles Times is right--``Young adults a hurdle for health act.'' The solution, Ezekiel Emanuel writes, is that ``every commencement address by an administration official should encourage young graduates to get health insurance.''

That is not going to be an easy sell for this administration. A recent Harvard poll of 18-to-24-year-old college students found that only 42 percent approve of how the President has handled health care. Young people are skeptical about the health care law. They are being told they have to buy expensive insurance that they may not need or may not want and that is not right for them because if they do not, the only people in the exchanges will be the old and the sick, and the whole thing will collapse under its own weight. For the President, that would be a terrible political disaster, and apparently this administration is willing to do whatever it takes to avoid that disaster.

According to the Washington Post, Secretary Sebelius is now going hat in hand to health industry officials asking them to donate to nonprofit groups in trying to enroll more people in the exchanges. At best, the Sebelius shakedown is a conflict of interest. And this latest scandal will only make young people more skeptical of the President's sales job on his health care law.

Young people understand they will have to pay more for health coverage so that older people will pay less. Young people understand they are being told to do something that is not in their best interest, and the reason they are being told to do it is to give the President a political win--not because they will get better health care but to give the President a political win. They understand the President's bad economy means they may not find a job, but they are supposed to be OK with that because mom and dad are allowed to pay their bills for a couple more years. Young people know a Cabinet Secretary shouldn't pressure businesses to support organizations that share the President's political agenda. They understand all of that even if the President won't say it to them during commencement speeches. If the President really wants to give young people a speech they will remember, he will tell them the truth about how terrible these policies are for them.

The President should leave the spin for the campaign trail and then come back to Washington and be ready to sit down and work with Republicans on policies that work for our economy, that work for young people, that work for future generations, and that work for all Americans.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, as I come to the floor today Americans all across the country are paying very close attention to the multiple scandals surrounding the Obama administration--one of the scandals my colleague and friend from Indiana has just so eloquently discussed.

We are seeing headlines all across the country. Today my hometown newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune, had the headline ``Trio of Troubles'' relating to the Obama administration.

What the American people are seeing from the Obama administration is a high level of incompetence and a very low level of transparency.

Here are just a few of the headlines today in the Washington Post: ``Criminal Probe of IRS launched.'' Criminal probe of IRS launched. Just below that, ``Leak Probe. Phone-records uproar ends Holder's respite.'' That has to do with the Justice Department's secret gathering of records from the Associated Press.

Inside the paper, open it, and there is much more. ``Media outlets condemn agency,'' ``Justice Department, IRS scandals challenge Obama's civil liberties credibility.''

Other articles in today's paper note the ongoing scandal over the administration's handling of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi. The Washington Post Fact Checker recently gave the President four Pinocchios for his attempt to mislead the public on the issue. The only reason they didn't give him five Pinocchios is you can't get five. Four is the highest rating you can get for misleading and inaccurate information.

Well, we need more details about the Benghazi coverup, the IRS targeting of conservatives, and the Justice Department's decision to monitor members of the media.

Today, though, I want to talk about another important story that raises serious questions about this administration's actions. Of course, I am referring to the abuse of power that I call ``the Sebelius shakedown.''

This scandal was first reported by the Washington Post on its front page last weekend. Here is the headline. ``HHS asking firms for money for ObamaCare.'' The article goes on to say:

Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has

gone hat in hand to health industry officials, asking them to

make large financial donations to help with the effort to

implement President Obama's landmark health care law.

The article goes on to say:

Over the past 3 months, Sebelius has made multiple phone

calls to health industry executives, to community

organizations, and to church groups, and asked that they

contribute whatever they can to nonprofit groups that are

working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness

of the law.

Madam President, these are very serious allegations against the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The President's health care law is a disaster that threatens American jobs, threatens American paychecks, and threatens Americans' health care. Instead of facing the reality, though, Secretary Sebelius has called on the exact same companies she regulates--the companies she regulates--to make financial donations to organizations that are trying to make this awful law look better than it is.

Well, the Sebelius shakedown is outrageous. She is the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the country. She holds tremendous power and influence over these companies she regulates. Her words and her requests matter. One industry official with direct knowledge of the Secretary's funding request was quoted in the Washington Post as saying there was a clear insinuation by the administration that insurers should give financially to this effort.

This would be like your boss coming in and standing by your desk and then asking you how many boxes of Girl Scout cookies you plan to buy from the boss's daughter that year.

This kind of conflict of interest would be disturbing even if this were just a minor agency with limited power, but Health and Human Services is not a minor agency. It is one of the most powerful and influential bureaucracies in all of Washington. President Obama's health care law gave Secretary Sebelius unprecedented power to regulate a very large portion of the U.S. economy. She controls a budget of nearly $1 trillion and oversees health care industries ranging from insurance companies to hospitals.

On top of that, Health and Human Services is currently negotiating with health plans to set premium rates. It is also setting up the government-run health care exchanges and confirming which companies will get to participate in those. That raises the stakes dramatically for these companies, and it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on them to keep the Secretary happy.

Private companies and other organizations should never be put in a position where they could fear for their future based upon their response to inappropriate requests from a member of the President's Cabinet. The American people should never have to wonder if their government is shaking down the very businesses they regulate.

At best, asking health care industry executives to donate money for the administration's health care law enrollment efforts is a blatant conflict of interest. At worst, the Secretary may have violated the law by increasing Federal spending without congressional authorization. As Congress begins investigating Secretary Sebelius's actions, the American people deserve answers to a number of important questions.

For starters, the American people would like to know who exactly the Secretary called. What did she ask? What specific legal authority permits the Secretary or any other HHS employee to solicit financial donations to implement the health care law? Which HHS officials participated in the decision to ask for these donations? Did anyone else at HHS ask for donations from outside groups and businesses? Did any other Obama administration officials make similar solicitations? What specific steps has Health and Human Services taken to ensure the Obama administration will not favor businesses and organizations that gave money or punish those that did not donate?

Secretary Sebelius had a history of questionable decisions even prior to her latest efforts to shake down the health industry. Back in September 2010, health insurance companies started informing their customers how much the President's health care law would increase the premiums of these individuals. So the Secretary responded by warning insurers the administration would be keeping track of their actions, and that some companies might be ``excluded'' from health insurance exchanges in 2014.

That was not an idle threat. Medicare's Chief Actuary had predicted in the future that essentially all Americans would buy health insurance through the government exchange. So the Secretary seemed to be threatening that any insurers telling customers the reason behind premium increases--which, of course, would be the President's health care law--could be put out of business.

Most recently, last fall the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that Secretary Sebelius violated the Hatch Act. She did this when campaigning for President Obama when traveling on official government business. Federal workers who violate the Hatch Act are often fired, but Secretary Sebelius was not punished at all.

There are already enough concerns about how the President's health care law will harm the American people. We cannot afford unresolved questions about whether a Cabinet Secretary pressured businesses that she regulates to make donations.

A lot of media attention on these scandals has focused on the political fallout. The politics is not the real issue. The real issue is that the American people need to know their government is not a thug. The real interest of the American people is in knowing they have confidence that their government will act in the people's best interests, not just in President Obama's best interest.

The American people need confidence that the administration is not favoring or punishing the people it regulates based upon their support for the administration's pet causes.

When it comes to these disturbing allegations about Secretary Sebelius and all of the other recent scandals, the American people deserve to know what happened. Yesterday Secretary Sebelius had an opportunity to answer questions. She did not. Today, again Secretary Sebelius had an opportunity to answer questions. Again, according to press reports, she refused to do so.

The American people want answers. Members of the Congress want answers. There are many more questions to be asked.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 868.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment restricts expansion of Federal authority, and it is a Federal authority attempting to encompass all the wet areas of farms, ranches, and suburban homes all across America, so this amendment is designed to restrict that expansion of Federal authority.

Specifically, the amendment eliminates this administration's guidance to implement this expansion of Federal authority. Through proposed guidance--that is the key phrase here, ``guidance''--Federal agencies are preparing to expand the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' I think it would make sense that people would inherently understand what waters of the United States would be. But the Federal Government is preparing to expand the definition to include ditches, including dry areas--other dry areas where water happens to flow and when it only flows even for a short duration after a rainfall. The American people know that should not be considered waters of the United States. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as ``waters of the United States.'' But this draft guidance coming out of Washington does do that, and it will have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' guidance amounts to a Federal user fee for farmers and ranchers to farm the land they own.

Just as troubling as ignoring congressional intent, the guidance absolutely disregards the fundamental tenet embodied in two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. One is the SWANCC decision and the other is the Rapanos decision. Those are decisions that say there are actual limits to Federal jurisdiction. It is particularly troubling to me and to others around the country--and certainly at home in Wyoming it is particularly troubling--that the guidance allows the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction. As somebody who has served in the State legislature, talking to the Presiding Officer as someone who has served as a Governor of his State, we know the key importance of State jurisdiction in making local decisions.

This guidance would grant the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers virtually unlimited--virtually unlimited-- regulatory control over all wet areas within a State.

In addition, if this guidance is allowed to go forward--the guidance I am attempting to prevent to protect Americans from today--enormous resources are going to be needed to expand the Clean Water Act Federal regulatory program, which could lead to longer delays, and the delays today are significant. Increased delays in securing permits are going to impede a host of economic activities in Wyoming as well as in all of our other States. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, electric transmission, transportation, and mining will all be affected. These are not sectors of our economy we ever want to deliberately hurt, but we certainly would not want to vote for guidance that would harm these sectors while we are in economic times such as these.

That is why I come to the floor with this amendment. I will be urging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment No. 868 at the appropriate time, to continue with the rights and responsibilities of the States and the private landowners impacting this significant water which is the lifeblood of our States.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment restricts the expansion of Federal authority to encompass all wet areas of farms, ranches, and suburban homes across the United States. They want to do it through guidance, this proposed guidance that is used by Federal agencies. It seems that they are preparing to expand the definition of waters of the United States to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a short duration after a rainfall.

This guidance is going to have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. This guidance will, in fact, trump States rights by preempting State and local governments from making local land and water use decisions.

I have always believed the State and local governments, not Washington, know best how to protect their communities from environmental harm. The guidance does exactly the opposite and puts the power of these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the 2013 Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. I agree with my colleagues who believe that moving forward with a bipartisan WRDA bill is important for our communities.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I believe we need to address the issues facing the Army Corps and the country. Today we have problems with aging infrastructure, with a lack of transparency, and with fiscal accountability--all of which impact the public health, the safety, and the economic welfare of our communities.

My staff and I have worked with our colleagues on the full committee and the subcommittee to create a bipartisan product to address these concerns. We may have our differences on a number of the issues, but the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting our States and protecting our constituents, not about partisan politics.

For example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my State. In 1984 the town of Baggs, WY, faced a major flood. The entire town had to be evacuated, and there was over $1 million worth of damage done. In mid-May of 2008, Baggs faced another major potential flood. The Wyoming National Guard was called in to assist, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. At the request of the Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corps Sacramento office sent an official who was able to oversee the reinforcement of existing berms and the construction of new ones. This time Baggs did not need to be evacuated and the damage was minimal.

Baggs is not the only town in Wyoming to need assistance to protect itself from the threat of flooding. Predicting floods and being better prepared for them is a major component in keeping Wyoming communities safe. That is why I proposed and successfully included language in this bill, with the help of the chair and ranking member, for an authorization for Upper Missouri Basin flood and drought monitoring. This program will restore the stream gauges and snowpack monitors through the Upper Missouri Basin at all elevations. These gauges are used to monitor snow depth and soil moisture, to help inform agencies such as the Corps as to potential flooding and also drought in the future. This type of monitoring will protect communities and save lives. The language is supported by the Upper Missouri Water Association.

I am also pleased that the language I have authored for technical assistance to help rural communities comply with environmental regulations was included in the bill. Rural communities often do not have the expertise or the funding to make important upgrades to their water systems. Dedicated professionals, such as the folks at the Wyoming Rural Water Association, use this funding to go into these communities and provide the critical assistance they need. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for his help in working with me to get this important language included in the bill.

As I mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed with the Army Corps. That is why I offered language to create an Army Corps project deauthorization process. It is one that mimics the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--you know, the BRAC Commission--that the Department of Defense uses to close or reconsolidate military bases.

Under my language, an independent commission appointed by the President would identify projects for deauthorization based on established criteria and then submit those projects as one package for an up-or-down vote by the Congress. There are many of these projects that are on the books. They are authorized for millions of dollars, and they are going nowhere. The backlog of Army Corps projects is currently about $60 billion according to the National Academy of Sciences. It is time for the Corps and Congress to clean the books, cut the waste, and bring fiscal responsibility to the WRDA process.

I am specifically thankful to Chairman Boxer and to Ranking Member Vitter and Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for supporting my language. I am also grateful to my colleagues for the bipartisan process under which this bill was considered. Our staffs worked well together. We put together a good product. I specifically want to thank a member of my staff, Brian Clifford, who worked diligently on this process and worked in a unified way. We see the results in the Senate.

The bill unanimously passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Although the bill is not perfect and there is always room for improvement, I believe we have achieved a compromise, a solution that is substantive, effective, and in the public interest. This is a product that will save lives, will maintain the flow of commerce, and will protect communities for years to come.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, following the leader's comments about the health care law, I found it interesting this morning to pick up the New York Times and see the headline above the fold, on the front page: ``New Worries for Democrats on Health Law.'' In the very first sentence, it says:

Democrats are worried that major snags will be exploited by

Republicans in next year's mid term elections.

I would say Democrats ought to be worried about the fact there are going to be major problems with this health care law--a health care law that was forced through the Senate, forced through the House, without listening to the American people. That is the concern Democrats ought to have, because the American people's health is being jeopardized as a result of the law we are now facing.

So I come to the floor today to talk a little about what we have learned about the President's health care law over the last week--the week we have been away traveling our States, visiting with people at home. It has been all over the headlines and it is also on the minds of the American people. It certainly was in Wyoming. As I talk to colleagues from around the country, they have heard a lot about this as they traveled their home States.

When we go back home to our States, a lot of Senators hear from their constituents about how worried they are about how this specific law is going to affect their care, their jobs, and their paychecks. It is what I heard this last week, and it is no different than what I have heard week after week after week.

I practiced medicine for 25 years, and I hear from patients who are worried about a new layer of Washington bureaucrats who are going to be sitting now between them and their doctor. I hear from families who are worried they won't be able to keep the insurance they have now, even though the President promised them they would be able to keep the insurance they have if they like it. I hear from employers who are worried they won't be able to afford all of the law's new requirements. That is what people are telling me when I travel the State of Wyoming.

This is interesting. According to the newspaper ``The Hill,'' which came out last week, Wednesday, May 1, I am not the only one. Here is the headline on the front page of the paper recently: ``Botched ObamaCare Tops Dem Fears for '14.''

Of course, that is a reference to the 2014 elections. The article talks about how anxious a lot of Washington Democrats are about the law they voted for. It talks about how, if the rest of the law's implementation doesn't go well, voters are going to know exactly who to blame.

Democratic candidates across the country know about it. That is why we see a Democratic candidate running today in this special congressional election in South Carolina trying to distance herself from the health care law. How did she do it? Let's turn the tape back to last week's debate in a congressional race: Special election, South Carolina. Here is what she had to say.

Obamacare is extremely problematic, it is expensive, it is

a $500 billion higher cost than we originally anticipated,

it's cutting into Medicare benefits, and it's having

companies lay off their employees because they are worried

about the cost of it. That is extremely problematic.

That is a Democrat, running for Congress, who said that last week. The election is today.

Another Democrat, the chairman of the Energy Committee, had this to say.

There is a reason to be very concerned about what's going

to happen with young people. If their premiums shoot up, I

can tell you, that is going to wash into the United States

Senate in a hurry.

Well, I agree with the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. So what are the prospects for implementation? Well, one of the key architects of the law, another Democrat, says he sees ``a huge train wreck coming down.'' That is what Senator Baucus said, and I think he is right; we are headed for a train wreck. That is what concerns the people I talk to--all those patients, the employers, the families I mentioned.

So what does the President have to say about this? Well, he was asked about it the other day at a press conference. The President's answer went on for more than 1,000 words, but it came down to one thing. He said:

For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have

health insurance, this thing has already happened. They do

not have to worry about anything else.

Can that really be what the President thinks? He even repeated the idea a couple of times. He said 90 percent of Americans don't have to worry. I would say, with all due respect to the President, people are worried, and they have every right to worry. There are many parts of this law that still have not ``already happened,'' in spite of what the President says. Those things are going to give the American people a lot more to worry about.

In fact, the Washington Post Fact Checker looked into what the President said--what the President claimed during his news conference. The Fact Checker found the President ignored the fact--completely ignored the fact--that 10 million people face the prospect of losing their current health care. The Fact Checker went on to cite a report from the Congressional Budget Office that said millions of people are going to be priced out of the insurance they have now--insurance that works for them. That is because of all the expensive extras the new government-approved insurance is going to have to cover, and which is also government mandated.

The Post pointed out:

. . . even unions, which were big supporters of the law,

have grown wary because it may drive up costs for their

health-care plans.

Twenty million people are covered by those plans the unions are worried about. The Washington Post Fact Checker also cited $1 trillion in tax increases in the law, which is going to hurt a lot more people.

The Medicare Actuary predicts 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies could leave the Medicare Program by 2019. These are our seniors. These are people who have continued to pay into the program. Yet we see these other groups saying we have had enough. Why? Because of the cuts to the programs and the payments the President

is counting on under his health care plan. Health insurance costs are continuing to go up, and that affects a lot of people, even though President Obama says they have nothing to worry about.

A leading Democratic Member of the Senate was interviewed the other day on New York television--his home State--and he conceded the health care law is contributing to those cost increases. But the President thinks it is nothing to worry about.

Here is how the New York Times last week summed up the President's attitude, under the headline: ``Health Care Law Is `Working Fine,' Obama Says in Addressing Criticism.''

Working fine? Mr. President, tell that to the 22 million Americans who can't find a job or who can't get the full-time work they want. Tell that to the businesses that have to cut back their workers' hours. Why? Because of the health care law. They have to do that because the law says companies with more than 50 full-time employees have to provide this expensive one-size-fits-all health insurance. So we see small businesses have stopped hiring so they can stay below that number of employees. Other businesses are cutting full-time workers back to part-time status, and cutting their shifts to less than 30 hours a week.

Look at the latest jobs report that came out last Friday. In April, the number of people working part time because their hours have been cut back or because they can't find a full-time job across the country increased by 278,000. The shift to more part-time workers also means the average workweek is getting shorter. In April it dropped again. That is not good for our economy and it is not good for the workers. The statistics show we are going in the wrong direction.

The anecdotal evidence is even worse. Recently, the Regal movie theater chain sent a memo to all its employees saying it would roll back shifts to keep nonsalaried workers below that 30-hour cutoff. The company explained it was forced to take this step ``to comply with the Affordable Care Act.''

We are going to see more and more of this as employers start to figure out exactly how hard they are going to be hit by the expensive and burdensome health care law. Hiring during the past 4 years under President Obama has been weak, and it has also been concentrated in nonsalary fields such as retail.

We saw more of this in the latest jobs report. Nearly 1 out of every 13 jobs is now in ``food services and drinking places.'' These are the kinds of places saying they are going to have to limit hiring and cut back shifts to less than 30 hours. Why? Because of the health care law; otherwise, they could go bankrupt trying to pay for expensive Washington-mandated insurance--insurance much more than is actually needed by their workers but insurance that is mandated by the law.

It is not just bars and restaurants. Let's look at the city of Long Beach in California. The Los Angeles Times reports the city of Long Beach is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to less than 27 hours a week, on average. The city says if it doesn't cut the hours, the new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year. The extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.

It may be, in the end, that not every one of those 1,600 people will have his or her hours cut. Some of the city employees are probably already under the 30-hour limit. But for everyone else there is the uncertainty of whether their hours are going to be cut and when. The uncertainty is part of what is causing employers to hesitate or to cut now because nobody knows how bad this train wreck will actually be.

That is just one of the negative side effects of the President's health care law, but it is having ripple effects throughout our entire economy. We have seen wages continue to stagnate. We have seen awful economic growth. The new numbers for the first quarter GDP growth came out a few days ago. They show the economy grew at an annual rate of just 2\1/2\ percent. It has been nearly 4 years since the recession ended. We should have seen a much more robust economic recovery by now. The economy can't grow until we can get Americans back to work. People cannot get back to work if there are not more jobs, and employers cannot create enough jobs because of the health care law.

Here is a third thing the President said. He said: ``Even if you do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps.''

These are not glitches. These are people's jobs. These are people's lives. This is the health care of the American people. For a lot of American families, the President's health care law is not headed for a train wreck, it has already gone off the rails. They are not worried about what the health care law is going to do to them, they are busy worrying about what the health care law has already done. They know this law and the uncertainty it has created is an anchor on our economy. Here is how the Chicago Tribune put it in an editorial the other day. They asked the question:

Glitches or a train wreck?

Then they said:

Bet on the wreck. We're hurtling toward this massive

restructuring of the health care insurance market, and no one

has confidence about what will happen. There will be massive

consequences, intended and unintended.

That is what the Chicago Tribune said.

The President says 90 percent of the American people have nothing to worry about from the health care law. He just doesn't get it. When I ask groups that I meet with back in Wyoming, I hear nearly 100 percent of the people say they expect to pay more under the President's health care law, and the care they get--they expect lower quality and less available health care as a result of the law.

People are very concerned about what is going to happen, and they do not think it is going to be good for them or for their families.

A new poll just came out from the Kaiser Family Foundation. It found that only 35 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the President's health care law. It is less popular now than it was when it first passed. It has gone down, actually, 8 percentage points since just last November's election. More and more people are realizing what is in this law and how it will hurt them personally and they are not happy about it. For the President to say otherwise is absurd. He is either not paying attention to what the American people are trying to tell him or he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

The health care law is headed for a train wreck. Saying it is going fine is just the President's Washington spin. The American people deserve better than that. They deserve for the President to tell them the truth. They deserve to hear from the President, to have him come clean on how much his health care law is costing and how much damage it is doing to our economy.

The American people deserve a vote in Congress to repeal this disastrous law. Until this law is repealed, we are going to continue to see weak economic growth and the American people are going to continue to pay the price.

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

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Rebekah Forman for her continued hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Rebekah is a native of Sheridan, WY, and a graduate of Sheridan High School. She currently attends the Laramie County Community College. She has once again demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

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

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

Brandi is a native of Casper, WY, and is a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends Casper College, where she is majoring in chemistry and prepharmacy. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Dustin Honaker for his hard work as an intern in my Republican policy committee office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Dustin is a native of Rock Springs, WY. He is a graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he earned a degree in political science. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Brouck Kuczynski for her hard work as an intern in my Republican policy committee office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Brouck is a native of Virginia and a graduate of Villanova University in Pennsylvania. She currently attends the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where she is expected to graduate in a few weeks. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

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

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Chris Perry for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Chris is from Casper, WY, and a graduate of Natrona County High School. He currently attends Casper College, where he is majoring in business administration. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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

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

Amber is a native of Gilbert, AZ. She graduated from the University of California, San Diego, with a degree in political science. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

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

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

Adam is a native of Guilford, CT, and a graduate of the University of Rochester, where he earned a degree in history. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

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