John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2017.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Department Reauthorization: An Opportunity to Strengthen and Streamline U.S. Diplomacy.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``The State of the U.S. Maritime Industry: The Federal Role.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, a small agency in New York State took a very big step that I think is very dangerous. The State Board of Regents said it will start giving some illegal immigrants a license to practice medicine in the State of New York. This is a State agency that grants certificates and licenses for more than 50 different professions. You need this board's permission if you want to be a nurse in New York, a pharmacist, a dentist or a doctor. I think it is a terrible idea to grant licenses to illegal immigrants because doctors, dentists, and others are entrusted to prescribe powerful medications. That is the point of the bill we are on right now. These include these very opioid painkillers we have been talking about for the past few weeks. Right now the Senate is debating what we can do to help communities and families who are struggling with abuse of these drugs. I think a big part of the problem is that these powerful medications are just too widely available. I can tell you that, as somebody who practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, I worry that there are physicians and dentists who may be too free in prescribing opioids, very addictive medicines. There are pharmacists who maybe haven't been as careful as they could be about making sure the drugs are used appropriately by the people who come to pick up prescriptions, and families across the country have been hurt by this abuse of these opioids, including many in New York State itself. Senator Gillibrand came to the floor last week to talk about it. She talked about the problem of opioids being overprescribed in New York. So then the question is: Why is New York State so eager to allow these drugs to be prescribed and dispensed by people who we know have already broken the law? The legislation we are debating today tries to reduce the flow of opioids, to reduce the ways that they might be prescribed improperly. It includes language that would help States monitor and track prescriptions. That is a very important part of this legislation which I support. Senator Markey of Massachusetts has actually offered an amendment that would do even more. It would tighten the process for registering people to dispense powerful drugs like these opioids. Under the rules today, the Drug Enforcement Administration registers doctors before it allows them to write these prescriptions. Senator Markey's amendment says that before anyone could even get this registration, they would have to complete additional training. We all want to make sure people who have been handing out these medications can be trusted to do it responsibly. We all should have to be very careful about giving a prescription pad to someone who, by history and maybe even their identity, may be unclear. So I am submitting an amendment to this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act that will help us do this. This amendment actually takes the same approach as Senator Markey's does. It adds a simple requirement, a requirement that before the Drug Enforcement Administration can register someone to prescribe or dispense these powerful addictive medications, that this applicant must be able to prove that they are either a U.S. citizen or a legal resident. That is it. There is actually a Federal law already on the books that requires this. It was signed into law and passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, but there was a loophole in the law that allowed States--like what New York is doing--States to come around later and exempt illegal immigrants from the requirement in their State. New York is doing that right now through its board. It is not the State legislature that is doing it in New York. It is not the citizens of New York who are doing it. They are not the ones saying they are willing to take a chance and loosen the standards of those who can prescribe these powerful, addictive medications. This is being done, and this decision is being made by a very small State agency acting on its own authority. I think this decision is much too important to be left to a small group of people in Albany, NY. I want to be clear. This is not about immigrants. This is about the threat that comes from the misuse of opioid painkillers. It is about maintaining the standards of the law. My grandfather came to this country. He did it legally like millions of others. He followed the rules. He worked hard. He continued to obey the law. We all know this is a country of immigrants, and we know America still proudly welcomes legal immigrants today. We also know that being a doctor is not like other jobs. When a patient goes to her doctor, she may literally be placing her own life in that doctor's hands. People need to have complete confidence that their doctor is ethical, honest, and can be trusted with life-and-death decisions. How can a patient have this kind of faith in someone who broke the law and is in the country illegally at this time? This action by the New York Board of Regents could seriously undermine the doctor- patient relationship and the trust that needs to be there. Doctors are held to the highest possible standards. They need to be outstanding members of their community. In the State of New York, a doctor can actually lose their license if convicted of a crime. What is it being in the country illegally? Why would we then give a license to someone who already knows they have committed a crime by being in the country illegally? It makes no sense. As a doctor, I will tell you these opioid medications are very powerful. They can be abused, and they have been abused, especially if they fall into the hands of someone who is not up to the highest moral professional and legal standards who is writing the prescription in the first place. We in Congress have a responsibility to make sure such dangerous medications can be given out only by people who meet the standards. I think it would set a terrible precedent if we allow people who are in this country illegally to begin prescribing these highly addictive drugs, but that is what New York wants to do. I don't think we can allow someone who has broken the law to serve as the gatekeeper for those potentially dangerous medications. We owe every American the peace of mind that the doctor treating their sick child is who that doctor claims to be and that their doctor is in the country legally. The New York Board of Regents is ignoring, absolutely ignoring, this important public health and public safety concern. If New York will not act to protect its people, then Congress must. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, there has been a great deal of discussion on the floor of the Senate about the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. Democrats want to fill it immediately. Republicans are much more interested in making sure the American people have an opportunity to weigh in on this very important decision. This is a lifetime appointment--a lifetime appointment--and the stakes could not be higher for our country. So it is perfectly reasonable to wait for the next President to make this critical nomination. It is also exactly the precedent that Democrats in this body, in the Senate, created for situations just like this one. First of all, let's remember it is not uncommon for there to be a vacancy on the Court. Sometimes the seat can be empty for even more than a year. There are eight Justices now. Two of them have already said they can handle the work that is available in front of them now with the seat vacant. Justice Alito said so, as did Justice Breyer. Now Justice Breyer, of course, was appointed by President Clinton. When Justice Breyer was asked the other day about the death of Justice Scalia, he said: ``We'll miss him, but we'll do our work.'' He has said: ``For the most part, it will not change.'' So there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court right now. Second, we should acknowledge that the process of nominating and confirming a Supreme Court Justice has become very partisan. It has also become very political. Some Democrats in this Senate have spent the last three decades undermining the way these appointments used to be made. It started in 1987, when Senate Democrats launched an all-out assault against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. It got so bad that the dictionary even created a new word. The word was to ``bork'' someone. It means to obstruct someone by ``systematically defaming or vilifying'' them. Then, in 1992, Senate Joe Biden came down to floor of the Senate to explain his rule, the Biden rule, for Supreme Court nominations. He 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 the Biden rule. You can't get any clearer than that. Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time when he announced the Biden rule. You know, he was not all that worried about having only eight Justices for a while. 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 would assuredly be a bitter fight.'' Well, if the fight would have been bitter in 1992, it would be even worse today. Today, we have had another 24 years of Democrats continuing to politicize the process. Just days after George W. Bush became President, Senate Democrats vowed that they would use--in their words--``whatever means necessary'' to block the President's judicial nominations. Democrats went so far as to try to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. That was the first time in the history of the Senate that they ever tried to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. It was the nomination of Justice Alito in 2006. The Democrats failed. Even though they failed, it set a new precedent. Some of the leaders of that filibuster were Senator Barack Obama, now President; Senator Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State, now- Presidential candidate; and Senator Joe Biden, now-Vice President of the United States. Senator Reid voted to filibuster as did current Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer, all part of the filibuster of the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Alito by George W. Bush. That is the history of how our confirmation process became so political; that is, three decades of Democrats politicizing the process. That is the precedent for where we are today. Those are the rules we will follow today. On top of all of that, President Obama has spent 7 years ignoring Congress. He has made the confirmation process more confrontational and more contentious every step along the way. The President illegally made what he called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. He even did it though Congress was not in recess. I use the word ``illegal'' because the Supreme Court struck down this action by President Obama. The vote was 9 to 0 that the President acted illegally. Even Democrats in Congress have said they think the President has gone too far with some of his Executive actions. So it is clear that Senate Democrats and President Obama have been injecting politics into the confirmation process for many years. Today they seem to wish that they hadn't done it. Well, these are the rules they wrote and these are the standards they set. The Senate will follow these rules. We should wait until next year to take up this important decision. Let the American people consider it as part of deciding who to support in November. Let the new President make this lasting decision without the political influence of the election hanging over it. It is not the job of the U.S. Senate to rubberstamp the President's nomination. The job of the Senate is to protect the Constitution and to serve the American people. That is the oath every one of us has taken in this body. We have a process for nominating and confirming Justices to the Supreme Court. It is a system the Democrats created and now they should be willing to follow the rules they wrote themselves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss more of the troubling news that has come out on how the health care law has affected the people of this country. A new poll just came out from National Public Radio as well as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This is what they found: According to the poll, 26 percent of Americans are telling us that the health care law--ObamaCare--has directly hurt them. Twenty-six percent of Americans say that ObamaCare, the health care law, has directly hurt them. Only 14 percent of the people in the poll said that their personal health care has gotten better under ObamaCare. So it is just one in seven who say it is better; over one- quarter say they have personally been hurt. So almost twice as many people have been directly hurt by the law compared to the people who have been helped. American taxpayers are also being hurt by ObamaCare because of the waste and the fraud in the health care system. There is a new report just out from the Government Accountability Office. It came out last week. It found that the Obama administration is still failing to stop the fraud in health care subsidies. Here is how the law was designed to work: People must have government-approved insurance because of the law. It is a mandate. There are a lot of people who have been forced to buy very expensive insurance to comply with the law, and in many cases it is far more coverage than they want, that they need, or that they can afford. So the health care law, which the Democrats voted for and the Republicans voted against, said that the government will give subsidies to people to help them pay for this Washington-mandated, expensive insurance. To get the subsidy, people are supposed to be able to prove they are eligible for the subsidy. There are various criteria to make sure people are eligible. That means things like proving they make a certain income or how many people are in their family or that they are citizens of the United States or that they are here legally. Washington then pays the subsidy directly to the insurance company. Then later, the government comes around and tries to figure out if the person even qualified for the money, so there is a huge potential for fraud and for wasting taxpayer dollars. This new report from the Government Accountability Office found that, despite the billions of dollars at stake, the Obama administration has taken what they describe as a ``passive approach'' to identifying and preventing the fraud. The Obama administration has taken a ``passive approach.'' It says the Obama administration has struggled--struggled to confirm the eligibility of millions of people who applied for subsidies. This is a report from the Government Accountability Office. We want accountability in government. The report found that there are 431,000 people who still had unresolved issues with the subsidy paperwork more than a year after they first applied. The cases amount to over $1.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Now, the insurance coverage that these people had for that year has already ended. The Obama administration still did not know if they should have gotten the money that was sent out to the insurance companies on their behalf. There are another 22,000 cases where it still is not clear if the person who got the subsidy was serving time in prison. How can Washington not even know if someone is in prison? This should be one of the easiest things to find out. But there are millions of cases where the administration is taking this passive approach to figuring out if there is fraud occurring with these subsidies. People all around the country are asking: Where is the accountability from the Obama administration? They are spending billions of taxpayer dollars. Where is the accountability to make sure that it is being spent properly and not wasted? There is no accountability because the Obama administration does not seem to care about protecting taxpayer money. It cares more about getting a large number of people enrolled in insurance. That is what they want, no matter what the law says, no matter how much money they waste to do it. This report from the Government Accountability Office came out last Wednesday. The very next day, there was more bad news for taxpayers because of the health care law. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, February 25, under the headline ``Insurance Fight Escalates.'' It goes on to say: ``Health co-op leaders say the effort to recoup Federal loans will come up short.'' This is taxpayer money. Remember, the health care law gave out billions of dollars--billions of dollars in loans to set up these health insurance co-ops across the country. They set up 23. Already, more than half of them have collapsed and have gone out of business, 12 out of 23 have gone bust, and 700,000 Americans lost their insurance because these co-ops failed. Now it looks as if hard-working taxpayers are going to lose the money that the government loaned to these failed insurance businesses. According to this Wall Street Journal article, leaders of the co-ops say that taxpayers are going to lose more than $1 billion in the failed co-ops. They say it is because most of the money has already been spent. The article quotes the head of the co-op in New Mexico as saying: ``Will there be any money left?'' ``Yeah, maybe.'' That is what he said. That is his answer: ``Yeah, maybe.'' Maybe there will be a little money left out of more than $1 billion in taxpayer loans. It is outrageous. It was not supposed to be a bailout of the insurance company. These were supposed to be loans. Is that how the administration thinks loans are supposed to work? Does the Obama administration think that if they lend out money and people borrow it from the taxpayers and spend it, then they don't have to pay it? Where is the accountability from these co-ops for the American people? Where is the accountability for the Obama administration to make sure that they loan this money responsibly and don't waste it? Reports like this paint a very bad picture of health care and the health care law in this country. We talked about these 23 co-ops and half of them have failed. This was headlined yesterday: ``Losses deepen for remaining ObamaCare co- ops.'' Losses snowballed in the fourth quarter at four co-op health plans [that have now reported their numbers for 2015]. The article says: The nonprofit startups based in Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and Maine lost about $270 million last year. . . . That's more than five times the level of losses those plans recorded in 2014. That was the first year they operated. They are still waiting for the updated financial reports on the other seven remaining co-ops that have not yet posted their returns. Here we are. Six years ago, there was a debate in Congress about the Americans' health care system. Everyone in this body agreed we had a problem. Everybody agreed we needed to do something to help Americans. Republicans presented our ideas on the floor of the Senate. We went to meetings at the White House. We offered President Obama solutions. Democrats and the President rejected our ideas, and they came up with their own massive plan. Washington took on too much power over the health care decisions of American families. More Washington control, less Washington accountability--they are never the right answers for our country. If Washington can't protect taxpayer dollars, it shouldn't be collecting so many of these dollars in the first place. Republicans warned that ObamaCare would be bad for patients, bad for providers, and terrible for the taxpayers. The news keeps coming out, showing that we were exactly right. Republicans are going to continue to talk about our health care ideas and will continue to talk about ideas that will actually hold Washington accountable as Washington spends taxpayers' dollars. We will continue to talk about ideas such as giving families more control over their health care and their health care decisions and giving Washington less control. That is what Americans want. This new report out from the National Public Radio poll showed 26 percent of Americans say that the health care law, ObamaCare, has directly hurt them. They didn't want this kind of health care reform that directly hurts them, instead of helping them; they wanted to be helped. They don't want an approach like we have; they want an approach that gives them control and, certainly, not a passive approach to preventing fraud. The American people do not want ObamaCare. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation that will streamline and modernize the Bureau of Indian Education. The Bureau of Indian Education school system includes 183 elementary and secondary schools, and it serves roughly 48,000 students. Part of the school system falls under a cumbersome bureaucracy burdened with needless red tape. This has led to staffing and administrative issues at these schools, as well as problems with neglect at the facilities themselves. A lack of defined leadership at the Bureau of Indian Education has led to schools falling through the cracks. In the past 36 years, there have been 33 Bureau of Indian Education directors. Stability and clear structure are needed. Last May, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on this topic. We heard testimony from Government Accountability Office officials that more accountability is needed at the Bureau of Indian Education to help students succeed. That is why I am introducing the Reforming American Indian Standards of Education--or RAISE--Act. The RAISE Act separates the functions of the Bureau of Indian Education from the Bureau of Indian Affairs into an independent agency under the Department of the Interior. This agency would be led by a president-appointed and Senate-confirmed director and two assistant directors. Together, this leadership team will oversee the administration of Indian Education, curriculum for the schools and school-facilities management. The RAISE Act will create better accountability for all. By having a leadership team that tribes can directly address for their school's needs, Indian students attending these schools will have a greater voice. The current Indian school system is managed in such a fragmented and complicated manner that it has failed students for many years. These students are our future, and they deserve our best efforts to address their educational needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation that will streamline and modernize the Bureau of Indian Education. The Bureau of Indian Education school system includes 183 elementary and secondary schools, and it serves roughly 48,000 students. Part of the school system falls under a cumbersome bureaucracy burdened with needless red tape. This has led to staffing and administrative issues at these schools, as well as problems with neglect at the facilities themselves. A lack of defined leadership at the Bureau of Indian Education has led to schools falling through the cracks. In the past 36 years, there have been 33 Bureau of Indian Education directors. Stability and clear structure are needed. Last May, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on this topic. We heard testimony from Government Accountability Office officials that more accountability is needed at the Bureau of Indian Education to help students succeed. That is why I am introducing the Reforming American Indian Standards of Education--or RAISE--Act. The RAISE Act separates the functions of the Bureau of Indian Education from the Bureau of Indian Affairs into an independent agency under the Department of the Interior. This agency would be led by a president-appointed and Senate-confirmed director and two assistant directors. Together, this leadership team will oversee the administration of Indian Education, curriculum for the schools and school-facilities management. The RAISE Act will create better accountability for all. By having a leadership team that tribes can directly address for their school's needs, Indian students attending these schools will have a greater voice. The current Indian school system is managed in such a fragmented and complicated manner that it has failed students for many years. These students are our future, and they deserve our best efforts to address their educational needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a drug abuse problem that is literally hurting millions of Americans. There has been a dramatic rise in the use and misuse of prescription painkillers. These prescription painkillers--and I tell you this as a doctor--are known as opioids. Between 1999 and 2013, sales of prescription painkillers in the United States have quadrupled. It is no coincidence that over that same number of years overdose deaths from these drugs have also quadrupled. This is how we know there has been a huge shift from the appropriate use to abuse of these medications. People in rural areas like my own are almost twice as likely to overdose on prescription painkillers as people in large cities. Some people think these problems are only a problem in the big cities. That is not the case with these opioids. I can tell you as a doctor who practiced medicine in Casper, WY, for 25 years, treating pain in our patients is one of the most difficult things we do. When we have a patient who is in pain, we want to help relieve that pain. Opioids are a very effective way to help patients with pain, and doctors use these medications through prescriptions to help manage the pain. It is important that we have the capacity to do that as long as it is done appropriately. This can be a very good option for someone suffering from chronic pain, such as pain from cancer. It can be appropriate for someone who is suffering from acute, temporary pain, such as someone who just had surgery. The problem is that these are extremely powerful narcotics. Chemically, they are not that different from heroin, and they can become addictive. Some patients have no problem at all taking these painkillers for the proper amount of time, while other patients might develop a problem and actually have trouble getting off the pain pills. As they get accustomed to the drugs, sometimes they may seek out stronger and more addictive drugs to get the same pain relief. That is why doctors have to be very careful about prescribing the right medicine for each patient and each situation. They have to balance the risk of the drug with the reward of easing the patient's pain. Not every doctor in this country has been as careful as they should be. We didn't get into this difficult situation because of a handful of doctors writing too many prescriptions. These prescriptions are being written by doctors in communities all across the country. It is happening in emergency rooms, with family doctors, with specialists, and even with dentists. I believe Washington policies have inadvertently contributed to the problem. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have made payments to hospitals partly based on how well the specific hospital has scored on surveys filled out by the patients--the patients who have been in those hospitals. Here are some examples of questions that are asked on these surveys: During this hospital stay, how often was your pain well controlled? Some patients are asked that. They are also asked: How often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain? Well, you can see how doctors might feel pressure to prescribe more and stronger opioid pain relievers to make sure their hospital doesn't get low scores and get penalized by the bureaucrats here in Washington. The Department of Health and Human Services is looking into whether these surveys are contributing to this rise in prescriptions and what can be done about it. Earlier this month I was 1 of 26 Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, who wrote to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure she keeps us apprised on the effects these regulations might be having. If these pain relievers are being prescribed inappropriately, they can do more harm than good. That's the problem. Some of these people who get these prescriptions for all the right reasons end up being addicted. When the prescription runs out, they may actually experience withdrawal symptoms, and I have seen it happen. So what do the people who become addicted to these opioids do? Well, they seek pills on the black market or they turn to other drugs, including heroin. Heroin is often cheaper than the actual prescription opioid and, of course, more deadly. From 2002 to 2013, heroin use in the United States has nearly doubled. The deaths from heroin overdoses have quadrupled. Why? One of the reasons seems to be that because heroin has become much cheaper on the street, it has also become a more attractive drug for addicts to buy and use. At the same time, the heroin today is believed to be much more powerful than it used to be, and so it may be that people who use it are much more likely to overdose. When we see statistics like these--or just talk to people, such as those who work in the emergency room, who have to deal with the drug addictions, 911 calls, opioid abuse, heroin abuse, and see all these problems--it is time for Congress to act. We can't turn a blind eye to Americans who are suffering and dying. That is why I think it is important that the Senate needs to take up action to help stop the damage being done. Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. It has bipartisan support, and it is one more sign that the Senate has gotten back to work on behalf of the American people. Just as the name of the legislation says, it actually addresses both problems--addiction and recovery. It will increase education and prevention efforts to help keep people from becoming addicted to painkillers in the first place. It is also going to strengthen State programs to monitor prescription drugs and to track when these drugs end up in the wrong hands. For the people who have already passed from use of the medications to abuse and addiction, this legislation will help to launch treatment programs that are based on actual evidence of what works. There are a lot of treatment programs out there and lots of different opportunities to seek treatment. We want to make sure we can identify the ones that are actually succeeding and helping people and then make sure these programs are available to more people. These are just a few of the positive ideas in the legislation. Senator Kelly Ayotte, who is one of the main sponsors of this legislation, has said that we can't arrest our way out of this problem. She is exactly right. The misuse and abuse of these drugs is illegal. We must acknowledge that fact. We must still try to do everything in our power to keep this misuse from turning into addiction and even death. There are States and communities and families suffering because of the abuse of these drugs. We can all be part of the solution, and we must all be part of the solution. I know that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is looking into another aspect of this subject, as is the Finance Committee. There are lots of ideas out there, and I am glad to see Members taking the issue so seriously. I am glad we are moving forward with bipartisan legislations and solutions. Senator Ayotte has been a major force in talking about this problem. Senators Whitehouse, Kirk, Portman, and others have addressed this issue. Another good, commonsense idea is looking into changing Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage. This legislation has been introduced by Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. The bill is called the Stopping Medication Abuse and Protecting Seniors Act. That is it: Stopping Medication Abuse and Protecting Seniors. It allows Part D and Medicare Advantage plans to lock in patients to a single prescriber, a single pharmacy, for their opioid pain medicine. This is going to do a couple of things. It will deal with the issue of doctor shopping. That is when a patient goes to multiple providers to get duplicate prescriptions if they become addicted. Many private insurance companies already do this and so does Medicaid. So we should allow and encourage Medicare to do it as well. These are all ideas with bipartisan support in the Senate. They are examples of ways that Democrats and Republicans are working together to help Americans who need and deserve help. The abuse of prescription drugs and heroin is happening everywhere in America. It is harming our Nation. Congress must do what it can to stop it. I thank the Presiding Officer and 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Tuesday, President Obama released his budget for the next fiscal year. As usual, there was a lot of new spending the American people don't want and a lot of new taxes the American people can't afford. It is interesting. Politico had a headline about the budget in Tuesday's paper. It says ``Obama launches liberal offensive in his final budget.'' A liberal offensive in his final budget. It called the budget ``aggressively liberal.'' Well, one of the big, ``aggressively liberal'' things the President put in his budget is an enormous tax increase on gasoline. This tax would add over $10 to the price of a barrel of oil. That equates to about 24 cents to a gallon of gasoline at the pump. This increase in tax would raise about $319 billion over 10 years. President Obama knows his budget has zero chance of becoming law, not just because Republicans won't vote for it; Democrats won't vote for it. Last year his budget was defeated by a vote of 98 to 1. Only one Member of his own party voted for his budget last year, and now Democrats in Congress are running away from this gas tax as fast as they can. The problem is, this tax is about more than just the budget; this is a sign that the Obama administration is still committed to continuing its assault on energy production in this country--red, white, and blue energy. The American people understand there are enormous national security implications to what the President is proposing in his budget. Right now there is fierce competition in the global energy markets. The OPEC cartel has a strategy to win that competition in the oil market. It has been pumping out oil at a pace that is intended to drive U.S. shale oil producers out of business. Then once the competition is gone, they will raise prices. The best way for us to protect American interests is to make it easier and cheaper for energy producers to operate here in America. The worst thing we could do is to add to the cost of American oil by imposing this new tax of $10 per barrel, 24 cents per gallon, but that is exactly what President Obama wants to do. He wants to raise taxes, and he wants to make it harder to produce American energy. President Obama's plan would actually help OPEC get what it wants. It would also put American energy producers at a competitive disadvantage with our adversaries in Iran and in Russia. Just a few weeks ago, the Obama administration lifted economic sanctions on Iran's energy exports. This means that Iran can now export oil again. So how much oil are they going to export? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iran right now has between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil sitting offshore in tankers today. Iran is planning to boost its oil exports to Europe and Asia by half a million barrels a day in the next few months. And it is not just oil; Iran is also the world's second largest producer of natural gas in terms of its resources. Right now, they are building a new export plant for liquefied natural gas that is about 40 percent complete, and they are ready to start shipping natural gas to Europe within 2 years. Russia is also a huge exporter of natural gas. That is one of the reasons Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. It was to get control of the gas pipelines there. Now it appears that Gazprom is prepared to start a natural gas price war with the United States. Gazprom is, of course, the Russian gas company that is mostly owned by the government and controlled by Vladimir Putin. A price war would help them maintain their grip as being the biggest gas supplier in Europe, and it would discourage U.S. liquefied natural gas projects from ever being built. What has the Obama administration done? The Obama administration has a documented history of delaying permits to American businesses that want to export our liquefied natural gas. Needless bureaucratic delays just deter energy production and producers from wanting to start these projects in the United States because it is so hard to get them approved, and that just drives up the cost. The administration's approach plays right into Vladimir Putin's hands. This is not the time to add cost to American energy production. That will only help our adversaries more, and it will make our allies more dependent on energy--not from us but from places such as Russia and Iran and, of course, from other OPEC countries. This is not the time to shut down the production of American energy. There are a lot of far-left, extreme environmentalists out there who want to make sure American energy resources are never used but stay in the ground. There are also a lot of Washington Democrats who are eager to give these environmental extremists everything they want-- everything. Last week in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was caught on tape promising one of these extremist supporters that the end of fossil fuel development on public land, she said, is ``a done deal.'' The end of exploration of fossil fuels on public land is ``a done deal.'' Well, it may be a done deal in her mind. It is also unrealistic, unwise, and unworkable. Take a look at it. Forty-one percent of America's coal production right now comes from public land; 22 percent of our crude oil comes from public land; 16 percent of our natural gas comes from public land; and Hillary Clinton, in her speech and her comments last Thursday in New Hampshire, said, in terms of any of that production, it is ``a done deal.'' I remind my colleagues that energy is the master resource. America needs energy for our economy to grow. We need those jobs. Where are we supposed to get our energy if we don't get it from public lands? We can't power America's manufacturing on wind alone. Instead of building new barriers to American energy production, we should be tearing down those barriers. The energy legislation we have been debating in this body actually includes ideas to help do that. One bipartisan idea in this legislation would help speed up the permitting process to export liquefied natural gas. It is bipartisan, with six Democratic cosponsors. After all the environmental studies have been done, after everything has been approved, it then takes an average of another 7 months for this administration to say yes or no on the permits. That is after everything has already been approved. Why would it take 7 additional months to get a decision by the administration? The Energy Department should be able to say yes or no, and this legislation says they should be able to do it within 45 days. This is going to force Washington to do its job in an accountable and timely way. That will help make sure other countries have options for where to get their energy, other than the concerns we have about a dominance of Russia, a dominance of Iran, and a change of the balance of power internationally. It is time for America's energy policies to help American energy producers compete and to help those jobs in our energy security at home. That is how we are going to build our economy, how we are going to create American jobs, and how we are going to strengthen our national security. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to remember the life of a great Wyoming citizen, Clayton James. A longtime Jackson Hole resident, Clay was well-loved by all in the community. I am honored to recognize Clay's lifetime of accomplishments. Born in St. Louis, Clay first felt the call of the West in college. He attended Arizona State University, eventually graduating with a bachelor of science degree in business. He held several jobs during the academic year, but his summers were reserved for the great beauty of Grand Teton National Park. It was here that he first began working for the Grand Teton Lodge Company. During this time, he learned to appreciate the natural beauty of the park, while also gaining firsthand experience in the hospitality industry. This experience proved useful upon his graduation. He returned to the Grand Teton Lodge Company as a full-time employee. The company was part of the Rockefeller RockResort Company, owned by Laurance Rockefeller. Clay's career in the resort management and development sector was largely the result of his relationship with Rockefeller. Shortly after being hired, he was selected to open a new Rockefeller resort in the British Virgin Islands; thus began a nearly 20-year career of opening, operating, and managing resorts and hotels. Clay was an outstanding representative for Wyoming's tourism industry. In working with the RockResort Company, Clay travelled extensively, opening resorts across the United States. During one such assignment in Hawaii, he met his future wife, Shay. They were married in 1966. And although they traveled frequently, often with family in tow, Clay never lost his love for the Teton Mountain Range. In 1984, they settled in Jackson Hole permanently, and he again returned to the Grand Teton Lodge Company as the general manager. His love for the resort and his staff was truly remarkable. When he retired in 2006, Clay was the well-admired president of the company. Clay was deeply passionate about conservation. He believed that it was possible to preserve the diverse ecosystem in Grand Teton National Park while also welcoming the millions of visitors who came to enjoy its splendors each year. This guiding principle led to his involvement in the transfer of the historic JY Ranch to the National Park Service. Owned by the Rockefeller Estate, the JY Ranch was a parcel of about 33,000 acres that was originally purchased by John Rockefeller, Jr., in the early 20th century. In 2007, Laurance Rockefeller asked Clay to manage this important transition. The project was completed in 2008, and the Laurance S. Rockefeller Preserve was opened in Grand Teton National Park for the public to enjoy. Clay was especially proud of this achievement because it brought so many of his passions together. Clay's extensive background in hotel management, as well as his experience as a concessionaire in Grand Teton National Park, was especially useful during his service on the Jackson Hole Airport's board of directors. This experience, coupled with his unique perspective, made Clay an effective liaison between the National Park Service and the Jackson Hole Airport. He was instrumental in the design and construction of the airport's terminal renovation and expansion project. With Clay's advocacy, the airport was able to complete all renovations while working with the Park Service to maintain the environmental integrity of Grand Teton National Park. Clay's penchant for giving back to the community was incredible. He devoted his free time to serving on several local and State boards and committees, each as different as his wide range of interests. He was a proud member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and also served in the Army National Guard. He always strove to improve the quality of life for his family, friends, and the community of Jackson, and his impact will be felt for years to come. Clay is survived by his wife of 49 years, Shay Orlin James, and his children and their spouses, Scott and Jennifer James and McKenzie and Robert Hammond. He loved his grandchildren Emma and Cole James and Rigdon and Riley Hammond. He also is survived by his brothers and their spouses, several nieces and nephews, and many close family friends. It is an honor to celebrate Clay James and his extraordinary legacy of community service. He was kind, personable, and a natural leader. I know that the community of Jackson shines brighter because of his special contributions.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of a great Wyoming citizen: Col. Raymond ``Ray'' Corbett Bishop, retired. Col. Bishop was an experienced leader who devoted his life to serving the country and State he loved. Ray grew up as part of a military family originally from Douglas, WY. His formative years were spent in a number of States, including Hawaii and Utah. Though he traveled extensively with his parents, Loren and Eleanor, and his two siblings, John and Helen, Ray's roots were firmly planted on Wyoming soil. He returned to the State to attend college at the University of Wyoming. In 1970, he graduated with his bachelor of science degree in ecology and received his commission from the U.S. Air Force ROTC program. This distinct honor became the first in a long line of achievements earned while serving his country. Ray had a successful career in the U.S. Air Force. He was driven and focused and honorably served his country for over 25 years. He had a distinct talent for flying. Throughout his service, Ray completed two combat tours in Vietnam and logged over 4,100 hours of flight time piloting B-52 and C-7A aircraft. Ray continued his record of leadership with a number of other assignments. He was commander at a number of bases, including 325th Bomb Squadron Commander at Fairchild Air Force Base, Operations Commander at Anderson Air Force Base, and Wing Commander at Castle Air Force Base. He was also a skilled educator, providing training for T38 pilots and serving as the Strategic Air Command Chair at the Air War College in Alabama. Ray met each new assignment with enthusiasm and fortitude. He earned many accolades during his years of service. In addition to the Air Force Commendation Medal, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and numerous other Meritorious Service Medals. These accomplishments and his Active-Duty service highlight his extraordinary patriotism. Following his military career, Ray continued his service in the aviation industry as the director of airports for Kern County, California. He served in this position until 2006, when Wyoming welcomed his return. Settling in Jackson, he became the director of the Jackson Hole Airport. He successfully rose to the challenge of directing the only commercial airport located in a national park. In the years he served as director, Ray brought the airport to new heights of success. Under his guidance, the airport experienced over $80,000,000 in capital improvements, including a complete renovation and expansion of the main terminal. Safety was Ray's first priority, and the runway was improved with several safety features that many larger airports have yet to implement. During his tenure, the airport received both airline and FAA accolades and national recognition for the terminal updates. Ray loved Grand Teton National Park, and he was proud of the strong working relationship between the park and the airport's board members that made the airport renovations possible. Ray retired in late 2014 and decided to remain in the area so that he could continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of the Jackson Hole area. According to friends, Ray was most at peace when he was in his boat on Jackson Lake. In addition, he was a seasoned triathlete and had been training to run in an international marathon. Ray is survived by his wife, Debbie, and his children, Brian and Kristina Bishop, Abbey and Mike Donley, and Clark and Christine Bishop. He loved his grandchildren, Megan Bishop, Elise Bishop, and William Donley; his sister, Helen Thompson, and her husband, Fred. Wyoming flies a little higher because of Ray Bishop's service. We thank Ray for his service to our Nation and Wyoming. We will miss him, but we are confident that his legacy lives on and can be seen by all who visit the Jackson Hole Airport.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for the past week the Senate has been debating the way that America produces and uses our energy. We have talked about how these issues affect our economy, how they affect our communities, and how they affect the world--the world that we hope to leave to our children. As Senators have come to the floor and offered their ideas, I have tried to keep one basic idea in mind, and that idea is that we want to make energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, as long as it doesn't raise costs on American families. I think that is the goal of many Members of the Senate with regard to this bipartisan legislation. I want to talk today about two bipartisan ideas--ideas that some of us have offered to make this legislation even better. One of the first amendments the Senate took up on this bill was an amendment I offered, along with Senator Schatz, that passed by voice vote. He is a Democrat, I am a Republican, and it is something that both of us think is a very good idea. This amendment creates a prize system to encourage new technologies that could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. A lot of the Members of this body talk about reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of them want to reduce this by cutting the amount of emissions of carbon dioxide; some want to do it with a carbon tax; and some others want to do it by banning some of the energy sources that we need today to power our economy. The problem with that approach is that it severally reduces how much energy we as Americans can use, and it raises the cost of energies on hardworking families. We just got the new economic numbers that are out in terms of economic growth in America for the last quarter of last year--0.7 percent. That is the last quarter of 2015. That is nowhere near the growth that we need in this country for a healthy economy. It is nothing. Cutting back on the types of energy resources Americans can use by some of these proposals or by making energy much more expensive is not going to help our economy grow as we need it to in terms of having a healthy, strong economy. The amendment that Senator Schatz and I have introduced looks at this issue from a very different direction. It looks at the carbon that is already in the atmosphere. The amendment says we should be looking much more at finding a way to remove some of that carbon dioxide. To get that done, America needs to invest more in developing new technology that can accomplish it, not just through more spending or more government research but by setting up a series of prizes for different technical breakthroughs. By doing that, we can turn to ingenuity and to innovation to solve the problem. That includes the private sector, universities, and even just someone out tinkering in their garage and coming up with a great idea. Prizes like this are not a new idea. Back in 1714 the British Government offered a big prize for the first person to invent a better way for measuring longitude. It was a clockmaker whose name was John Harrison. He won the prize, and his idea transformed the way that we sail the seas. In 1927 Charles Lindbergh flew nonstop from New York to Paris. This helped create the new modern aviation industry. He took the flight to win a $25,000 prize-sponsored by a New York hotel owner. The prize created by this amendment--and there is more than one. There are several prizes. The prizes created by this amendment are meant to encourage that kind of new thinking, that kind of bold action. So that is one of the amendments, one of the bipartisan ideas. Another amendment and idea that we have talked about, which is again bipartisan, is an amendment we voted on yesterday, amendment No. 3030. This was an idea that had bipartisan support. My lead cosponsor was my friend from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp. This amendment would have expedited the permit process for natural gas gathering lines on Federal lands, on Indian lands. Gathering lines are pipelines that collect unprocessed gas from oil and gas wells and then ship it to a processing plant. At the plant, the different kind of gases--methane, propane--are separated from one another. Then they are shipped out again by other pipelines to locations where they can be sold and used by people to power our country, to power our economy. That is what the producers want to do. The problem is, we don't have enough of these gathering lines to gather up this gas and send it to the processing plants. So a lot of times there is only one option, and that is to flare or vent the excess natural gas at the well. If there were more gathering lines, then we would have a lot less waste. You don't have to take my word for it. Last month, the Obama administration proposed a new rule that restricts this kind of flaring of oil and gas operations on Federal land and on Indian land. In that rule, the administration admitted that the main way to avoid flaring ``is to capture, transport, and process'' that gas for sale, using the same technologies that are used for natural gas wells. It makes sense. The administration said that the rate of energy production in some of the areas outpaces the rate of development of this infrastructure to capture the gas. The administration said the production had overwhelmed the capacity of the gathering lines, and Senator Heitkamp and I were talking about ways to deal with the problem. Even though the administration seems to recognize and give voice to the problem, its proposed rule doesn't actually address the problem or provide a solution, and Senator Heitkamp and I have a solution. The rule doesn't do anything to speed up the permit process for natural gas gathering pipelines. The President ignores that component. Whether you agree with this new rule or you disagree with it, the only practical way to reduce the venting or the flaring of natural gas is to build more of these gathering lines. The rule will not work without them. If we don't build the infrastructure to solve the problem, the administration's rule will end up pushing oil and gas production off of Federal lands, off of Indian land, and this is completely unacceptable. It is unworkable. The Obama administration says this type of gas venting and flaring is bad for the environment. They say the government is losing royalty money because the gas isn't being sold. I agree. That is why the bipartisan amendment Senator Heitkamp and I sponsored would solve both of these problems at once. Even though we weren't able to get that amendment adopted yesterday, this is an idea that all Republicans and Democrats should be able to support. It would help Americans get the energy we need and do it in a cleaner way and at a lower cost. That is the goal. I know Senators on both sides of the aisle are going to keep talking about this idea, and we are going to keep trying to get it enacted into law. These are just two commonsense, bipartisan ideas Republicans and Democrats have offered to solve the energy challenges America is facing. In my home State of Wyoming, people know we need to balance a strong economy and a healthy environment. They are in favor of using our natural resources responsibly. Part of that is remembering that these are resources and resources should be and can be used. We should also recognize that the important resource we have in this country is American ingenuity. We should be investing in it. We should be cutting through the redtape that holds back innovation. Abraham Lincoln once said that when we face new and difficult challenges, we must think anew, and we must act anew. Lincoln knew the importance of setting a big goal, of unleashing the ingenuity of the American people to get it done. He had the vision for the transcontinental railroad. He also signed the original charter for the National Academy of Sciences. We must think anew; we must act anew. It is not enough for environmental extremists to say that the resources have to stay in the ground. That is not realistic. That is not responsible. America can do better, and the American people are ready to be part of this solution. They are ready to make energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs on American families. They need us to help show the way. With this kind of bipartisan solution I have been talking about today, I think we can take a step toward reaching that goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3030.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we all want to reduce the flaring of natural gas in oil wells, and to do that we need natural gas gathering lines. These are small pipelines that capture natural gas from oil wells where it would otherwise be flared off into the atmosphere. This is a bipartisan amendment. I am delighted to be here with Senator Heitkamp, who is a cosponsor. This bipartisan amendment expedites the permitting of the gathering lines on Federal land and, subject to tribal consent, also on Indian lands. This is a commonsense solution that helps taxpayers, Indian Country, and our environment. I yield to my lead cosponsor, the junior Senator from North Dakota.

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