John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to David Jost for his hard work as an intern in my Riverton office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. David is a graduate of the University of Wyoming, where he received a B.A. in psychology, B.S. in sociology, and M.S. in neurophysiology. David has also received a master of natural resources from Virginia Tech. 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 want to thank David for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I head home to Wyoming just about every weekend. Lots of people from Wyoming come here to Washington to visit as well. When I am home, I get a chance to talk to people, and here in Washington, I get to talk to people. So yesterday is a day I flew here. I had talked to folks in Wyoming early in the morning and then yesterday afternoon got off the plane, and there were a number of students here from Sheridan High School from ``We the People.'' One of our pages here is also from that high school. So you get to hear a lot from people. Some folks have been asking: What has the Republican Congress actually accomplished? So I would like to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about what the Senate has actually done this year and during this Congress since the Republicans have taken over the majority. We are not even 4 months into this year, and we have already had a very productive year in the Senate. It is true. We have been active, we have been effective, and it is only April. In February, we passed legislation to add tough new sanctions against North Korea. As the Presiding Officer knows, the President in the White House was very reluctant when we started proposing these sanctions-- hesitant about the sanctions that we proposed against North Korea. Let's face it. North Korea has been aggressively testing missiles, testing nuclear weapons, and needs to be stopped. When other countries threaten their neighbors, as North Korea has done in their general geographic area, what happens is the United States must stand up and stop them. President Obama has done far too little. I am very concerned about the aggression and the ambitions of North Korea. That is why the Senate had to act. So Congress has stood up and pushed against this action. We had more action against North Korea; that is exactly what we did. The Senate also acted by passing a Defend Trade Secrets Act to help businesses protect their confidential information. We passed a piece of legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation to help fight the misuse of prescription drugs, in terms of prescription pain killers called opioids. Now, look, it has been a huge problem in our country-- communities all around the country. Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and Senator Portman of Ohio were two of the main sponsors of this legislation. I know Senator Portman was on the floor recently, talking about different legislation. But he has shown heroic leadership in an area that certainly needed to be addressed. The Senate worked and reauthorized the Older Americans Act. This was another bipartisan piece of legislation. It works to help provide senior citizens with things like meals, transportation--ways to help people live in their own homes longer and ways to help in terms of their quality of life, which is very important for Americans all across the country. We passed legislation to overhaul and reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. This is a significant accomplishment. This legislation promotes U.S. aerospace jobs by cutting through some of the redtape that has been hurting airplane designers. Then, just last week, we passed a comprehensive overhaul of American energy policy, something we had not done in about 8 years. Over the past few years, hard-working Americans have made this country into an energy superpower. Yet we had not passed any kind of major energy legislation for about 8 years because Washington's regulations have simply not kept pace, and they have actually worked against the energy producers, people that are getting back to work, getting this country's economy returned. The legislation we passed is going to rein in some of this needless, wasteful bureaucracy that the Federal Government has imposed on the people creating energy jobs and working to produce more energy because energy is called a master resource for a reason. We have it in great abundance. One of the very important parts was language to expedite the shipment of America's natural gas to buyers around the world. It is good for our economy, and it is good for our allies who will be able to decrease their dependence on Russian gas. Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska did an outstanding job of making sure that this legislation had ideas from both sides of the aisle. That is a big part of why this piece of major energy legislation--first time in 8 years--passed 85 to 12--85 to 12. That is another big accomplishment of the Senate this year that does not get enough attention. It is not just that we are passing important legislation that helps Americans, but we are doing it in a bipartisan way that allows every Senator--every Member of this body--to represent the people back home with their ideas and their suggestions. We have voted on 129 amendments so far this year--129 amendments voted on this year. When the Democrats under Harry Reid were in control, a lot of people around here got used to the idea that people did not actually get to vote on amendments. In 2014, the last year under Democratic control under Harry Reid, the Senate had only 15 up- or-down votes on amendments all year--full calendar year 2014. When Republicans took the majority, we changed that. The Senate has been working this year just as we worked last year. We could have done a lot more if a few Democrats had not blocked progress on some very important pieces of legislation. The people in Wyoming now know that there are some important things they really care about, and they were actually blocked by President Obama. In January, the President vetoed legislation that we had passed to improve health care in this country by repealing major parts of ObamaCare. Remember, the President said to Democrats that they should forcefully defend and be proud of that health care law, but one out of four Americans--25 percent of Americans--say they have been personally harmed by the President's health care law. So we put it on his desk to do a repeal, and he vetoed that. Now, only about one in eight people in this country say they have been helped by the health care law. When you take a look at major legislation that impacts the country, it is no surprise that this health care law continues to be very unpopular, especially when you see that for every one person who says they have been helped, there are almost two people who said they have personally been hurt by the law. The President also vetoed legislation that we passed here to bring some sanity to something called the waters of the United States rule-- again, a rule put out in regulation by the President, a reinterpretation of the law. The law is very clear to me, but the President had his own approach. We put a bill on his desk to overturn what he has tried to do. The courts have actually stopped him in his tracks, but he once again vetoed our efforts. Last year the President actually vetoed five different bills passed by Congress. This kind of obstructionism from President Obama doesn't help our country move forward. It is not helpful when the Democratic leaders do everything they can to convince people that nothing is being done in the Senate, but we hear that day after day from Minority Leader Harry Reid. It is interesting, because when Senator Reid was the majority leader, he had a very firm strategy, and the strategy seemed to be to do as little as possible. Well, he is now the minority leader, and I think he went from the majority to the minority for a reason. It seems to me that he is still hanging on, clinging on to that losing strategy. The plan didn't work then, and I think that one of the reasons that he continues to try to talk down and slow down some of our progress is because, actually, he is envious--envious of anyone who gets things done in the Senate. Republicans in the Senate are not interested in working at Harry Reid's pace and neither are the Democrats--many of the Democrats. Most Senators agree that we have a lot of work to do and that it is good for America when we actually do the work. That is why we have been working our way through the appropriations bills. This year we got the earliest start ever to appropriations bills--and really in the history of the modern budget process. So we continue to work on that. I wish to be clear on one important point. Doing our job in the Senate doesn't mean setting aside the priorities of the American people just to help President Obama build a political legacy. That is why the Senate is going to stand firm and strong to give Americans a voice in who gets to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Now President Obama wants us to set aside everything else and let him appoint his Justice to the Supreme Court. It is not going to happen. We do our job every day, doing the things that will make an immediate difference to the families all across the country, things that Republicans and Democrats agree on and that everybody knows we should be doing. That is what you are seeing with this Republican-run Senate. That is what the people want us to do. That is what they expect us to do, and that is what we will continue to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Holly Heussner 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. Holly is a native of Sugar Land, Texas. She recently graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she received a degree in international relations. 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 want to thank Holly for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Stephen Compton for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Stephen is a native of Utah. He currently attends Utah State University, where he studies communications and 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 want to thank Stephen for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Nolan Rap for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Nolan is a native of Cheyenne and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. He currently attends the University of Wyoming, where he studies political science and Russian. 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 want to thank Nolan for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is 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 journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Gabriel Lepinski for his hard work as an intern in the Republican Policy Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Gabe is a native of Illinois. He currently attends the University of Kansas, where he studies political science and Arabic. 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 want to thank Gabe for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kyle Paladino 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. Kyle is a native of New Jersey. He currently attends the University of Georgia, where he studies political science. Kyle will attend the University of Georgia School of Law this fall. 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 want to thank Kyle for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Friday, representatives from more than 130 countries are going to be gathering at the United Nations in New York to sign a broad new climate change agreement. This is the same agreement that countries negotiated in Paris last year. Back in December, President Obama said that it was a ``strong'' agreement. Hillary Clinton called it a ``historic step forward.'' But for many Americans, it is actually going to be a giant step backward. First, I believe this agreement is terrible for our economy. The Obama administration is using this international agreement to force new regulations on American energy producers and new restrictions on the American people. There are new rules on coal producers, and there are new rules on exports of American crude oil and liquefied natural gas. This administration has spent years--years--targeting the men and women who produce American energy, energy in our country. Well, Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected the President's radical ideas. We knew that all of these regulations would cripple America's energy industries and would throw Americans out of work, many in my home State of Wyoming. We knew that all of these destructive rules would cost billions of dollars and produce little or no positive benefit. The Obama administration went ahead and ignored what the people wanted, and they wrote these destructive new rules anyway. All of these regulations have consequences. My home State of Wyoming has seen thousands of hard-working men and women lose their jobs in the energy fields. Just over the past few years, people working in oil, gas, coal, and uranium--just a few weeks ago, two of the largest coal mines in Wyoming announced that they would let go 15 percent of their workers. Some 465 families were affected by the job losses. Despite all of this pain, the Obama administration went out and promised the rest of the world that it was going to keep pushing for more restrictions on American energy, on red, white, and blue energy. The other countries getting together in New York on Friday need to be aware that there are serious doubts about whether this administration is actually going to be able to actually do that. This administration has promised huge cuts to America's greenhouse gas emissions, but the promise has already run into legal problems. The Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to stop enforcing the so-called Clean Power Plan--stop enforcing it completely--until the courts can decide if it is even legal. I believe it is not legal. Now the Obama administration has promised $3 billion to the United Nations for its climate change efforts. Well, it turns out that giving away this money will violate U.S. law. The money the administration pledged was supposed to go to the Green Climate Fund. This is the money the United Nations plans to use to coerce--really coerce--developing countries to go along with the climate change--what I believe is a sideshow. President Obama asked for $500 million for this fund in his budget last year. So what happened when the budget came here to the Senate where the President had a request? Congress rejected the President's budget 98 to 1. Talk about bipartisan rejection. That is it. But the administration went ahead and transferred the money anyway, even though the money was never authorized by Congress. Now the President wants to give this Green Climate Fund another $750 million in taxpayer money. There is a second climate change organization; it is called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This organization is the foundation for funding this whole climate change agreement. The administration has contributed to it in the past. It wants to send another $13 million next year. Here is the problem and the legacy the administration faces: As the administration tries to give away money to these international climate change groups, it is now prohibited by law. You may ask why. Well, it is because last month, on March 17, the United Nations officially recognized the so-called State of Palestine. They said that the State of Palestine is a full member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Well, according to a 1994 law passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed into law, the United States cannot give any money to any affiliated organization of the United Nations that grants the Palestinians membership as a state. It is called the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. These climate change groups are clearly affiliated organizations of the U.N. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--the organization that the Palestinian group, this so-called State of Palestine, just joined as a member state--says on its own Web site that it is institutionally linked to the United Nations. There is no denying it. It says that the Green Climate Fund is one of its ``constituted bodies.'' So there is a direct link. The law of the United States on this is clear, it is simple, and it is unmistakable. The pipeline of money the Obama administration is planning to send to these organizations is shut off. That is what happened in 2011 when the Palestinian group joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO. That triggered a similar 1990 law, and the United States has not given any money to UNESCO ever since. The Palestinians have been trying to get international organizations connected to the United Nations to recognize them as a state for a long time. It is part of their strategy. They think that if they can get the rest of the world to recognize the ``State of Palestinian,'' then it strengthens their hand in negotiations with Israel. That strategy absolutely undercuts U.S. policy that says the Palestinians and the Israelis should be negotiating these things on their own without the rest of the world getting involved. That is the best way for Middle East peace negotiations to go forward, and that is what both the Palestinians and the Israelis have agreed to in the past. So U.S. law says that when the Palestinians try to go around that process, as we just saw with this climate change organization, there are legal consequences. That is why a group of 28 Senators wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week. We wrote to demand that he follow the law, obey the law of the land. We wanted to make sure the rest of the world understands clearly that it is unlawful for the United States to give another dime to these U.N. climate change groups. The Obama administration has skirted the will of Congress in the past when it sent $500 million of U.S. taxpayer money to these groups. It will not get away with sending any more money in violation of the law. The administration needs to understand this fact, and so do the rest of the countries getting together in New York on Friday. The American people do not support shutting down our economy, hurting our economy, to support the administration's promises on greenhouse gasses. The American people don't support the administration spending billions of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support this alarming climate change agreement. What the American people expect is their President and his administration to follow and to obey the law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last August several Western States and Indian tribes suffered an enormous environmental disaster. It was called the Gold King Mine spill. In this disaster, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency caused a spill of 3 million gallons of toxic waste water into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado. This photograph shows the before and after. People all across the country remember this picture and the poisoning of this river by the EPA. This plume of toxic waste threatened people in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. It stretched to the land of the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. When the Indian Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Gold King Mine spill last September, we heard testimony from Russell Begaye. He is the President of the Navajo Nation, which has lands roughly the size of the State of West Virginia, a very large piece of land. President Begaye told our committee that for the Navajo people, water is sacred, and the river is life for all of us. He said: Today, we are afraid to use the river--with an emphasis on the word ``afraid.'' The EPA caused that spill more than 8 months ago because it made crucial mistakes, critical mistakes. It failed to take basic precautions. Well, we still have not gotten answers to some very important questions. Now that the snow in the Rocky Mountains is beginning to melt, people in this very area, in the course of this river, are worried that they are being victimized once again by the failures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They want to know if melting snow is going to stir up the lead and the mercury and the other poisons that have settled to the bottom after this poisonous spill. They want to know if this blue river is going to turn bright yellow again. Well, next week I am chairing a hearing in Phoenix, AZ, and it is a field hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee. We are going to be looking at the Environmental Protection Agency's unacceptable response to Indian tribes. This includes inadequate handling of the Gold King Mine disaster. It includes the Agency dragging its feet on cleaning up the cold-water uranium mines across the Navajo and the Hopi reservations. The members of these tribes deserve to hear directly from the EPA. They want answers about what is being done to fix this blunder. From what I have seen lately, I expect the Environmental Protection Agency will be doing its best to avoid giving any answer at all. When we, the Indian Affairs Committee, first invited the Agency to send a representative to this hearing to update us, they refused. It is astonishing; they refused. They said they would send written testimony instead. I don't think the EPA understands how this works. We are holding this field hearing to do oversight on this catastrophe that the EPA caused. This is not optional for them. This is not supposed to be just another chance for the EPA to show how uncooperative and unhelpful they can be. So tomorrow the Indian Affairs Committee plans to issue a formal subpoena for the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, to appear at the field hearing. Ms. McCarthy testified last year. When she testified before our committee in Washington last September, she said that the Agency was taking--her words--``full responsibility'' for the spill. Today, the Agency will not even come and look these people in the eye. Does that sound as though it is taking ``full responsibility''? When this disaster first happened, the EPA did not notify the Navajo Nation until a full day after the spill. After 4 days, the EPA still had not reported to the Navajo leaders that there was arsenic in the water. This disaster happened more than 8 months ago. No one--no one at the Agency has been fired. No one has even been reprimanded for their failure. What has the EPA done? Well, here is a headline from the Wall Street Journal on Friday, April 8: ``Toxic-Spill Fears Haunt Southwest.'' In the southwestern part of the country, according to this article, it has been months since the Agency has been back to test the safety of the well water for the families near the river. Officials in New Mexico and in Utah say the EPA has failed to spearhead a comprehensive plan to manage the spring runoff or even to conduct long-term monitoring. The States and the tribes are having to monitor the water quality themselves. Why, you ask? Well, it is because the EPA was not planning to test enough sites or provide real-time data. That is what people need. What good is the data if it is not telling people that the water they are drinking right now is safe? Why tell people that the water they drank a week ago or a month ago was contaminated? They need to know about the water today. There are 200,000 people who drink from the river system that the EPA poisoned last summer. Why has the Environmental Protection Agency walked away from these families? Why is this Agency not taking full responsibility for making sure this mess has been cleaned up? I am not alone in asking that. This article about the ``Toxic-Spill Fears Haunt Southwest'' in the Wall Street Journal on Friday goes further. They actually quote the State environment secretary from New Mexico, who lives there, lives on the land, and knows the situation. This is the State environment secretary. He says: The fundamental problem is, there is no engagement from the EPA. None. This is a specific, definite, concrete, environmental disaster. It was caused by specific people at the Environmental Protection Agency. This is about a government agency failing to do its job. They took their eye off the ball. They caused this toxic spill. They still have not focused on cleaning up the mess that they caused. Like so much in Washington, DC, the EPA has grown too big, too arrogant, too irresponsible, and too unaccountable. People in America deserve accountability. We all want a clean environment. That is not in dispute. We all know the original mission of the Environmental Protection Agency was a noble one. Somewhere along the line, this Agency lost its way. It got preoccupied with other things, and it lost sight of its real job, which is to protect the environment. Instead, we get this. When President Begaye of the Navajo Nation testified before the Indian Affairs Committee last fall, he was very clear. This is what he said: The Navajo Nation does not trust the U.S. EPA, and we expect it to be held fully accountable. Let me repeat. The Navajo Nation does not trust the U.S. EPA. We expect it to be held fully accountable. I think the Navajo Nation and other tribes in the West are right to not trust the EPA. They are right to expect it to be held fully accountable. That is exactly what we intend to do with this field hearing next week. Indian Country and all of America need to know if the EPA can do its job. From what they see here, they have serious, serious doubts. These people do not need a written statement. They need to hear straight from the people in charge and that means from Gina McCarthy, who is the head of the EPA. Next Friday, April 22, is Earth Day. According to press reports, Administrator McCarthy is planning to go to New York that day for a big media event around the Paris climate change treaty. That is what she is planning for next Friday, the day of this important hearing--a day when the EPA just wants to send written testimony. It is her preference to be in New York talking about what happened in Paris instead of going to Arizona to face the people her Agency has abandoned. That is what she thinks is more important. That is the way this administration prioritizes its activity--a photo op in New York, not meeting with the people whose lives her Agency has devastated. The director of the EPA still does not have her priorities straight. It should not have to come down to a subpoena. The Environmental Protection Agency should have done the right thing from the very beginning. It is up to the EPA to do the right thing now. On Earth Day, of all days, we need to hear from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for weeks now we have seen Democratic Senators come to the floor and attack the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The tone of these attacks against Senator Grassley have been vicious and they have been very personal. I believe Democrats have embarrassed themselves, and they have done a disservice to their constituents and to the U.S. Senate. Senator Grassley is an outstanding public servant. He has been relentless in representing the interests and the views of the people of his home State of Iowa. He has not missed a vote in 27 years. He holds townhall meetings in every one of Iowa's 99 counties every single year. That is how seriously Chuck Grassley takes his responsibility to serve and to represent the people of his home State. Every other Member of this body should be trying to copy his example, not coming to the floor to criticize him or take cheap shots, as the Democrats have been doing in an attempt for political gain. What Senator Grassley wants should be the same thing all of us want when it comes to momentous decisions--decisions like who will have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. He wants to give the people a voice. That is what Senator Grassley wants for the people of Iowa, and that is what I want for the people of Wyoming. Senator Enzi and I had a telephone townhall meeting last month, talking to people around the State of Wyoming. The great majority of the folks in Wyoming agree with Senator Grassley, agree with Senator Enzi, and agree with me about the next Supreme Court Justice and giving the people a voice. This isn't just something that Republicans are making up because we don't like this nominee, although there is plenty not to like; it is what past chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee have done, Democrats as well as Republicans. In 1992 Senator Joe Biden--now Vice President Joe Biden, but then Senator Joe Biden--came to the Senate floor to explain his rule, called the Biden rule, and it had to do with Supreme Court nominations. On this Senate floor, Joe Biden said that once the Presidential election is underway, ``action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'' That is what Vice President Joe Biden said when he was a Senator. Those are Joe Biden's words--former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the same position Senator Chuck Grassley currently holds. Senator Biden at the time said the temporary vacancy on the Court was ``quite minor''-- ``quite minor,'' he said--``compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the Senate, and our nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight.'' Senator Biden was one of the Democrats who voted to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. So was Senator Pat Leahy, who once also chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Obama and Senator Harry Reid--that is right, Barack Obama, currently President of the United States, then-Senator Obama, and Senator Harry Reid, once majority leader, now minority leader--voted for that filibuster. Back in 2005, when Senator Reid was the Democratic leader, he said: ``Nowhere in [the Constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.'' Senator Reid even went so far as to unilaterally change the rules of the Senate on nominations a few years ago. He was in the majority then; now he is in the minority. That is what Democrats have done and what they have said about things like nominations to the Supreme Court and other important jobs for the country. We have elections in this country for a reason--it is so we can hear directly from the people what they think and how they want us to act on their behalf. In 2014, the American people rejected the path the Democrats in Washington were taking. They put Republicans in charge of the House and the Senate because they wanted us to act as a check and a balance on what President Obama was doing. Democrats want to ignore the will of the people on this Supreme Court nomination. The President wants to say it is his decision and his alone. Well, it is not just his decision. Now that the election season is upon us, it should be the people's decision. Republicans understand that, Senator Grassley clearly understands that, and Democrats actually used to understand it. We need to give the people a voice. Energy Industry Jobs Mr. President, I would also like to speak briefly about something going on in my home State of Wyoming. Late last week, two of our State's largest coal mines announced they would let go 15 percent of their workers--465 families now living with the terrible pain of loss of a job. Wyoming has seen thousands of hard-working men and women lose their jobs in the energy industry over the past few years, people working in oil, gas, and coal. Democrats in Washington should never forget that the regulations they and this administration impose have real impact on real people. When Members of the Congress focus obsessively--and it is a misguided obsession--on ideas like climate change, they do grave damage to the hard-working families all across this country who are trying to provide energy for America and provide for their families. When Democratic Presidential candidates say they want to keep our resources in the ground, they send shock waves through communities that depend on energy jobs. When the Obama administration promotes green energy at any cost, it does great harm to Americans who are working to produce red, white, and blue energy. Seven years of overregulation has taken its toll on coal country. The Obama administration has taken away these people's jobs, and now it is trying to take away their dignity because a person's job is related to their identity and dignity in so many ways. My goal is to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs and causing pain to American families. That means investing in new ways to develop Wyoming's incredible energy resources and finding new markets for those resources. Energy is known as the master resource. It is the master resource for a reason, and America provides and produces the energy we need for a strong economy as well as a healthy environment. There are bipartisan ideas and bills here in the Senate to help us do both. We should never give up on that goal. American energy production has powered our economic recovery and has been the workhorse for the American economy for the last 7 years through the economic recovery. It is time for us here in the Senate, here in the country, certainly here in Washington, to return that favor and to help get these Americans back to work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christopher Loring, Federal Aviation Administration detailee on the Commerce Committee, be granted floor privileges throughout the debate on H.R. 606, the vehicle for the FAA reauthorization.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago was the sixth anniversary of President Obama's unpopular health care law. Every year at this time, that birthday is not one people actually want to celebrate. When we take a look at the reasons Americans aren't celebrating ObamaCare's sixth birthday, it is pretty obvious. Let's read them: unsecured data through the Web site, fewer provider choices, over $1 trillion in new taxes on American families, 2 million jobs' worth of hours lost, and skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. It is no surprise that the health care law continues to be very unpopular. Americans know that under the health care law they have less freedom to keep their doctor, to keep the insurance that was right for them and their families, because the President says he gets to decide what somebody needs for themselves and their families--not the families getting to decide for themselves. We know that--again, it came out during the break--people's personal data is not secure at healthcare.gov, as they thought it was. We know insurance companies are continuing to give patients fewer choices by limiting the networks of doctors that people can see. The health care law has added over $1 trillion in new taxes onto hardworking American families. Premiums and deductibles are up, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare is cutting the hours Americans can work by about 2 million jobs over the next decade. So it seems that every day there is more news coming out on how the health care law is unaffordable, unpopular, and unworkable. Last week there was a new study that explains one of the reasons why the President's health care law is collapsing. There was a study that came out from Blue Cross Blue Shield. It compared people buying new health insurance coverage in the ObamaCare exchanges to people who already had health insurance through their jobs. The study found that the new ObamaCare customers went to the doctor 26 percent more often than other people did, that they were admitted to the hospital almost twice as often, that ObamaCare customers have higher costs, and that the average medical spending is about $1,200 a year higher for people on ObamaCare than people who get their insurance through work. So why is it that hospital admissions are up so much for people who are on ObamaCare, and why is it that doctors' visits are up 26 percent? Because the new ObamaCare enrollees are sicker and costlier. So insurance companies of course have to raise their premiums. People are sicker who are signing up. They go to the doctor more. The insurance company turns around, and it raises premiums on everyone else. That is why so many people are opposed to the health care law--because the impact it has had on them personally. When insurance companies have to raise their rates on ObamaCare plans, a lot of money is paid by taxpayers because it is the taxpayers who are paying for the subsidies for all the folks who have signed up for ObamaCare. What we know is that taxpayers are subsidizing the premiums of 83 percent of the people who buy ObamaCare insurance. When the premiums go up, taxes have to be made up to pay for it. Well, when companies can't get enough extra money, they just stop offering policies. Under ObamaCare that may happen. Then more people will lose their insurance coverage. Maybe some companies will just go out of business. We are familiar with that process because we have seen it. We have seen that under the ObamaCare health care law, a majority of the ObamaCare health insurance co-ops have actually gone bankrupt. The health care law created 23 co-ops, and 12 have already gone out of business. Premiums were already out of control, and it is getting worse. The average premium for what is called the benchmark silver plan in the ObamaCare exchange is more than 7 percent higher this year than last year. For people who can only afford the cheaper bronze plan, premiums are up 13 percent compared to last year. Over the next couple of months, insurance companies are going to start setting their rates for 2017. They are going to take into account what has happened in the previous year. So this new study by Blue Cross Blue Shield is just laying the groundwork for even more price increases to come next year. I think this is one of the things that explains why so many people dislike ObamaCare. A new poll came out that found that 47 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law. The Kaiser Family Foundation report shows Americans' opinion of ObamaCare is tilting negative--47 percent marked it unpopular in March of 2016. A year ago this poll said that 42 percent of the people had an unfavorable view. There we were a year ago. Here we are now. The number keeps climbing. Now only 41 percent of the people have a favorable view of the health care law. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Mr. President, 6 years ago Democrats in Washington were very confident that the law would be extremely popular today. As a matter of fact, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York went on ``Meet the Press'' back in 2010 and said: ``It is going to become more popular.'' He said: ``I predict that by November those who voted for the health care law will find it an asset.'' Well, we all remember what happened in the 2010 elections. We know that Democrats who voted for the health care law did not find it an asset. Democrats lost six seats in the Senate that year, and they lost control of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi was out as Speaker of the House, and the Republicans took the majority. Then in 2013, Senator Harry Reid was making this same prediction about how popular the health care law was going to be. He told the newspaper The Hill in Washington that ObamaCare would be ``a net positive'' for Democrats in 2014. Senator Reid forced the health care law through Congress when he was the majority leader, and I think that is a big part of why he is now the minority leader. He lost the majority in the Senate. Why? I think in big part because of the health care law and the fact that it ignored the needs of the American people. The longer people have to live with this offensive and expensive law, the less popular it gets. It was never popular to begin with, but today, even more than before, the opinion is, as this poster says, ``tilting negative.'' The same poll also found something I found amazing. I have practiced medicine for 25 years, and I have been involved here in the Senate for a number of years. I have never seen anything like this. This new poll found that 28 percent of Americans say that this health care law has directly hurt them and their families. The President says: Defend and be proud of this law. How can you defend and be proud of something that 28 percent of the American public tells you has hurt them and their family personally? Only 18 percent in the poll said the law had directly helped them. It is incredible and it is disturbing. ObamaCare is hurting far more people than it is helping. Costs are going up much faster than Democrats promised, as are copays and deductibles. It is no wonder the law is unpopular. We know the health care law makes it more expensive for taxpayers--but how much more expensive? The Congressional Budget Office came out with a report last week. It said that over the next 10 years the health care law is going to cost $136 billion more than they thought it would cost just a year ago. When they compared what they thought it was going to cost a year ago and what they think it is going to cost now, it is $136 billion more. That is despite there being fewer people in the insurance exchanges than they expected. They predicted there would be 21 million people buying ObamaCare health insurance this year. In fact, they say it is going to be no more than 12 million. People are doing everything they can to avoid these insurance policies--especially young, healthy people. So why is it going to cost an extra $136 billion? One of the reasons is higher premiums, sicker patients, and because the law has dumped so many more people into Medicaid. About 23 percent of the people in the country under the age of 65 are now on Medicaid. That is what the Congressional Budget Office says--one out of every four. Is that a success--putting all these additional people on Medicaid? The President says it is. As a doctor who has practiced medicine and taken care of patients for over 25 years, putting additional people on Medicaid is not a success. It is not what people wanted, and it is not what President Obama promised. Americans deserve better. They deserve better than to be shoved into this second-tier health care system. Plus, in terms of government health care programs and wasting money, a recent study found that for every dollar spent on Medicaid, people only get about 20 to 40 cents on every dollar spent. How is that for an inefficient government system? Almost every day we get more information on the damage the health care law is doing to Americans across the country. Republicans have offered solutions that would actually keep the promises the Democrats made for ObamaCare, such as letting people keep their doctors and keep their insurance, giving more people options for how they can reduce their costs of medical care. Americans have now been forced to try this ObamaCare experiment--what the Democrats wanted--and forced to do it for the last 6 years. ObamaCare isn't getting any better. It is just getting older, and it is still making things worse for American families. That is why it is so unpopular. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dam Repairs and Improvements for Tribes Act of 2016 or DRIFT Act. This important legislation is intended to address the flood prevention and dam safety needs in Indian Country. It would address the deferred maintenance needs of Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, dams, as well as reform tribal programs within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The BIA has 137 high-hazard dams and over 700 low-hazard dams across the United States. Nearly all of the high-hazard dams are in Western United States, including two high-hazard dams on the Wind River Reservation in my home State of Wyoming--Washakie Dam and Ray Lake Dam. According to the BIA staff, on average these dams are 70 to 80 years old and have over $500 million in deferred maintenance needs. Funding is simply not keeping up with the maintenance needs of these dams and the threat to public safety in and around Indian Country is very real. The United States has a trust obligation to maintain and operate these dams and prevent what could be a future dam failure. The legislation I am introducing today would require the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to address the maintenance backlog of BIA dams by establishing a High-Hazard Indian Dam Safety Deferred Maintenance Fund and a Low- Hazard Indian Dam Safety Deferred Maintenance Fund. The high-hazard fund would receive $22,750,000 each year from fiscal years 2017 through 2037. The low-hazard fund would receive $10,000,000 for the same time period. The bill funds low-hazard dams if their needs are critical as well and are not being addressed by available scarce resources. Neglecting the deferred maintenance needs of these dams may result in them becoming high hazard dams in the near future. The DRIFT Act establishes criteria for how the money would be prioritized, looking at criteria such as threats to public safety, natural or cultural resources, and economic concerns. The criteria also looks at the ability of increasing water storage capacity of BIA dams to prevent flooding to downstream communities. The legislation also seeks to make other important flood prevention and dam safety policy reforms for both the BIA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Specifically, the DRIFT Act establishes a 4-year pilot program for a BIA flood mitigation program for tribes; establishes a Tribal Safety of Dams Committee within the Department of the Interior to make recommendations to Congress for modernizing the Indian Dam Safety Act; and mandates that tribes regularly report their dam inventory to BIA. The bill requires the BIA to report annually on the safety status of their dams to Congress; makes reforms to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Tribal Partnership Program to allow the Corps to pay for any feasibility study of a project costing not more than $10,000,000; allows in-kind contributions by tribes to count towards a cost-share of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study; and allows tribes to not have a cost share for studies and projects that cost up to $200,000. This is the same cost-sharing requirements the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allows for U.S. territories. It is time to make sure that we make the necessary changes to ensure that tribes and surrounding communities are protected, and that the Federal Government collaborates with and empowers Indian tribes to secure their communities.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dam Repairs and Improvements for Tribes Act of 2016 or DRIFT Act. This important legislation is intended to address the flood prevention and dam safety needs in Indian Country. It would address the deferred maintenance needs of Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, dams, as well as reform tribal programs within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The BIA has 137 high-hazard dams and over 700 low-hazard dams across the United States. Nearly all of the high-hazard dams are in Western United States, including two high-hazard dams on the Wind River Reservation in my home State of Wyoming--Washakie Dam and Ray Lake Dam. According to the BIA staff, on average these dams are 70 to 80 years old and have over $500 million in deferred maintenance needs. Funding is simply not keeping up with the maintenance needs of these dams and the threat to public safety in and around Indian Country is very real. The United States has a trust obligation to maintain and operate these dams and prevent what could be a future dam failure. The legislation I am introducing today would require the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to address the maintenance backlog of BIA dams by establishing a High-Hazard Indian Dam Safety Deferred Maintenance Fund and a Low- Hazard Indian Dam Safety Deferred Maintenance Fund. The high-hazard fund would receive $22,750,000 each year from fiscal years 2017 through 2037. The low-hazard fund would receive $10,000,000 for the same time period. The bill funds low-hazard dams if their needs are critical as well and are not being addressed by available scarce resources. Neglecting the deferred maintenance needs of these dams may result in them becoming high hazard dams in the near future. The DRIFT Act establishes criteria for how the money would be prioritized, looking at criteria such as threats to public safety, natural or cultural resources, and economic concerns. The criteria also looks at the ability of increasing water storage capacity of BIA dams to prevent flooding to downstream communities. The legislation also seeks to make other important flood prevention and dam safety policy reforms for both the BIA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Specifically, the DRIFT Act establishes a 4-year pilot program for a BIA flood mitigation program for tribes; establishes a Tribal Safety of Dams Committee within the Department of the Interior to make recommendations to Congress for modernizing the Indian Dam Safety Act; and mandates that tribes regularly report their dam inventory to BIA. The bill requires the BIA to report annually on the safety status of their dams to Congress; makes reforms to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Tribal Partnership Program to allow the Corps to pay for any feasibility study of a project costing not more than $10,000,000; allows in-kind contributions by tribes to count towards a cost-share of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study; and allows tribes to not have a cost share for studies and projects that cost up to $200,000. This is the same cost-sharing requirements the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allows for U.S. territories. It is time to make sure that we make the necessary changes to ensure that tribes and surrounding communities are protected, and that the Federal Government collaborates with and empowers Indian tribes to secure their communities.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on March 29 in Laramie, the University of Wyoming will recognize the work of Senator Mike Enzi with an official dedication of the Michael B. Enzi STEM Facility. It is a well- deserved honor and one that I would like to share with my fellow Senators. The state of the art facility opened in January of 2016. With more than 107,000 square feet and over 30 labs, the University of Wyoming Michael B. Enzi STEM Facility will allow 900 students from multiple disciplines to be actively engaged in lab studies at the same time. The design of the facility allows students to enjoy an active learning environment that encourages continuous interaction between instructors and students. Classrooms are laid out in such a way that instructors have the flexibility to adjust their lessons to accommodate the needs and interests of the students, ensuring that they are always in an environment most conducive to learning. There is no better way to honor the lifetime work of Senator Enzi than to name this facility in his honor. Throughout his years as an accountant and in elected office, Mike has been a solid leader who is willing to take on tough challenges. From his time as mayor in Gillette, a town that truly represents the definition of an American boomtown, to his work in the U.S. Senate, Mike studies and works through an issue and always approaches the problem with an ``I will solve this and make it better'' attitude. This approach to problem solving has helped Mike succeed as chairman of both the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Enzi recognizes that if you provide people the tools to succeed, many will. Mike understands human nature and recognizes that a one size fits all approach to serious problems is not always the best way to fix things. Senator Enzi believes in the ability of people to learn, whether in the classroom, on the job, or through personal experiences, and to take that knowledge and use it in a way to better themselves and others. The Michael B. Enzi STEM Facility is a perfect reflection of the man: give people an opportunity to learn, to interact, to share, and in an environment that works for them, and they will achieve great things. In praising his effort to improve education in Wyoming, Chris Boswell, University of Wyoming's vice president for governmental and community affairs, said the following about Mike Enzi: ``He has been very influential in crafting legislation that garners bipartisan support in the Senate. These have been bills that moved significant education initiatives forward. Whether as chairman or ranking member, Senator Enzi knows how to move bills through to become law, and Wyoming and the country are the better for it.'' I agree completely, and I congratulate Senator Enzi on this honor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week the Prime Minister of Canada came for a visit. President Obama used that opportunity to take yet another cheap shot at American energy producers. The administration has made a deal with Canada to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production facilities. They want tough new restrictions to cut emissions almost in half over the next decade. The very same day, the Environmental Protection Agency said that it plans to come up with more regulations for methane. The Obama administration is already trying to limit the methane that gets released from new oil and gas wells as they get put into production. Now the administration wants to go back and impose those limits on existing wells--ones that were built to actually comply with the current rules on the books. Here is what I find most interesting about this. This was an official state visit by a foreign leader to the United States. It was the first trip for the new Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. So President Obama decided that the most important thing the two countries could talk about was methane--not Syria, not trying to stop radical Islamist terrorists, not dealing with ISIS, not the hostile regimes of North Korea, Iran, or Russia, not what we could do to actually help our economies grow--no. Instead, President Obama chose to focus on methane. Why is President Obama so fixated on this? Let me tell you. The President is bitter--bitter that the Supreme Court is blocking his Clean Power Plan. He is pouting and he is pandering. He has gone after coal, he has gone after oil, and now he is going after natural gas. It is a vendetta against American energy producers. The President and other Democrats are pandering to radical environmental extremists and to their billionaire donors. We all want to make sure that we have a clean environment. My goal is to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and to do it in ways that don't raise costs for American families. That is why the people I talk with in Wyoming believe that this new regulation is the wrong approach. My local newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune, had a front-page article about it on Friday. The headline was this: ``Cuts to methane emissions proposed.'' The article quotes John Robitaille. He is from the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. He says the Environmental Protection Agency ``has failed to recognize the economic burden placed on replacing equipment on existing wells as opposed to new wells''--ones that are still to be built. John Robitaille may say ``failed to recognize.'' I say the administration deliberately refuses to recognize--refuses. For Washington to come in and demand expensive new equipment for all of these oil and gas wells would be a huge cost. It would drive up prices for consumers, and it would mean that some of these wells wouldn't be economically worthwhile anymore. The oil and gas would stay in the ground where it does nothing to help power our economy or power our country. States are already doing their part. States are trying to limit methane leaks where they find a problem. Colorado has a leak detection and repair program that will help keep ozone and methane from escaping. Wyoming, my home State, is looking for ways to get more up-to-date equipment on new wells as they get going. So the States are already taking the lead, and they are already coming up with solutions where they are needed. This is not a one-size- fits-all regulation coming from unelected, unaccountable Washington bureaucrats. But that is what we are having to deal with now in this administration. What we prefer are State solutions. What I just described are State solutions that strike a commonsense balance between a strong economy and a very healthy environment. It is not just the States that are taking action. Oil and gas producers also want to reduce how much methane escapes from these wells. When you think about it, producers would prefer to capture that gas and then to sell it so it can be used. That is why the industry reduced methane emissions by 13 percent between 2008 and 2013. Over the same years, U.S. shale gas production grew by 400 percent. So the industry actually cut emissions even while gas production went way up. This happened because of the action that the producers in the States have already been taking, not because of more regulations coming out of Washington, DC. Energy producers need the flexibility to tackle these emissions when and how it makes sense. There are already too many rules on the books. The Bureau of Land Management has another methane rule in the works. More duplicative regulations will just raise costs for Americans at a time when our economy is weak and emissions actually are already dropping. This new redtape could add hundreds of millions of dollars every year onto the cost of producing American red, white, and blue energy. If the Obama administration really wants to reduce emissions from oil and gas wells, it should help the industry to capture this gas and to use it. This was the subject of bipartisan legislation that Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and I offered last month. It was an amendment to the energy legislation. Our bipartisan amendment would have expedited the permit process for natural gas gathering lines--the lines that gather this gas on the Federal land, on Indian land and then help take it to market. Gas gathering lines are essentially pipelines that collect unprocessed gas from oil and gas wells and then ship it to a processing plant. At the plant, different kinds of gases--methane, propane--are separated from one another. They are then shipped out again to locations where they can be sold and used by people. That is what the producers want to do. The problem is that we don't have enough of these pipelines now to gather up the gas and to send it to the processing plants. A lot of times there is only one option if you don't have the gathering lines, and that is to flare or vent the excess natural gas at the well. If there were more gathering lines, we would have a lot less waste of energy. We would have a lot less of these methane emissions that President Obama claims to be so worried about. So Senator Heitkamp and I offered a better way to deal with the problem, and 43 Democrats here in the Senate blocked our amendment. At a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month, I actually asked Interior Secretary Jewell about the idea. Even she had to concede that speeding up the permits was something that they should be looking into. This doesn't have to be a fight. We all agree there is too much of this gas that has been vented or burned off at the oil and gas wells. Republicans know it. Democrats know it. Energy producers know it. So why can't we agree to let the industry build the gathering lines to help them capture the gas where it makes sense and how it makes sense? Why do we need more Washington regulations that impose higher costs? America's energy producers have increased production while reducing emissions. They have provided what may be the only bright spot in our economy over the past 7 years. We should be doing all that we can to help and to encourage them. We should be looking for voluntary, cost- effective ways to make sure that we can make American energy as clean as we can and as fast as we can without raising costs on American families. The Obama administration is going in the wrong direction. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about what I have been hearing from people in Wyoming about the issue of whether President Obama should nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. This past last weekend, I was around the State of Wyoming in Rock Springs, in Rawlings, and in Casper and the weekend before that, as well, in Casper, Cheyenne, and Big Piney. I am hearing the same thing from all around the State of Wyoming. What I am hearing is that President Obama should not be the one to put another nominee on the Supreme Court and that it should come down to the people: Give the people a voice. That is what I am hearing back home. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, is doing exactly what the people of Wyoming are insisting upon--the right thing. He is doing the right thing by insisting that the American people decide. I think Senator Grassley is doing a great service to this body, to the American people, and also to whomever the next President nominates for the Supreme Court. On Monday, after traveling around the State of Wyoming, Senator Enzi, who had also traveled around the State of Wyoming this past weekend, and I jointly held a telephone townhall meeting. Folks at home are very familiar with these. We do these just about every month. We have a chance to visit with people about what is on their mind. Then there is a little way you can do a poll during that telephone townhall meeting, and 88 percent of the people of Wyoming agree with Senator Grassley, agree with Senator Enzi and with me about the next Supreme Court Justice and giving the people a voice. Democrats want to turn this all around into a fight on the Senate floor. They want this to be a backroom deal between the President and the special interest groups. These are the groups that are pushing the President to appoint someone who will rule the way they want. But that is not what the American people want. The American people--and certainly the people in Wyoming--want this to be a fight about what happens and what they decide in the voting booth in November. When an election is just months away, the people should be allowed to consider possible Supreme Court nominees as one factor in deciding whom they will support for President. This shouldn't really even be controversial. Democrats in the past have come to the floor, and they said it would be a bad idea to let the President make a lifetime appointment in his last months in office. In 1992 Senator Joe Biden came to the Senate floor to explain his rule. He called it the Biden rule, and it had to do with Supreme Court nominations. On the Senate floor, Joe Biden--now the Vice President, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee--said that once the Presidential election is underway--and I will tell you, Madam President, the Presidential election is underway--``action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'' Those are the words of Joe Biden. Senator Biden said that a temporary vacancy on the Court was ``quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and our Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight.'' That is what Senator Biden at the time was worried about. He was worried that a bitter fight over a nominee would do damage to the nominee and to the Senate. He knew there would be Senators who would come to the floor and try to politicize this process for their own purposes, and we are seeing the Democrats doing that right now. He knew it because that is what Democrats have done for years. This is politics as usual for the Democrats. It is the way they tend to live their lives here on the Senate floor--talking this way. It is exactly what Democrats did when Robert Bork was nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. So Vice President Biden, former Senator Biden, understands it completely. It is what they did when Miguel Estrada was nominated to the circuit court. It is what Democrats did when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. Democrats in the Senate even filibustered Justice Alito when he was the nominee. They did everything they could to slander good, qualified people to try to score political points. It is what they do. Well, there is no need for us to have this bitter political fight that Joe Biden worried about. Republicans have said there should not be a bitter political fight. We have called on the President to spare the country this fight. The best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let the people decide. Give the people a voice, and let the next President put forth the nomination. That is certainly what the people of Wyoming want us to do. It is what I heard, along with Senator Enzi, on the telephone townhall meeting this past Monday, and that is what I heard as I traveled around the State of Wyoming the past several weekends. I will be back in Wyoming this weekend, and I expect to hear the same thing as I travel to Buffalo to the health fair and to communities around the State. That is what the American people are saying: Give the people a voice. They are saying that a seat on the Supreme Court should not be just another political payoff to score points in an election year. They are saying it should not be a decision for a lameduck President with one foot out the door. It is too important for that. The Supreme Court is functioning just fine with eight Justices right now. That is not me saying it; it is the Justices of the Supreme Court saying the same thing. Since Justice Scalia died last month, the Court has heard oral arguments in 10 cases. They have released written opinions in five cases. They have scheduled more cases for the rest of the term, and they are doing their jobs. That is exactly what Justice Breyer said they would do. He is a liberal Supreme Court Justice who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. A reporter asked Justice Breyer about the death of Justice Scalia, and he said: ``We'll miss him, but we'll do our work.'' He said: ``For the most part, it will not change.'' So there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court right now. There is no danger in waiting for the next President to act. There is tremendous danger, however, if we rush through a nomination in the last few months of a Presidential election, to the nominee, to the Senate, and to the Nation, just as Joe Biden said 24 years ago. The stakes are very high, too high to let that happen. The people are telling us what they want. Eighty-eight percent of the people in Wyoming involved in our telephone townhall meeting on Monday said exactly that: Give the people a voice. We must let the people decide. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.