John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the energy committee. She does a remarkable job, and she has brought many people together on this bipartisan piece of legislation. It passed the committee 18 to 4. People are energetic about this Energy bill because it is so critical and important to our communities and our economy. As the Senate is discussing this important energy legislation, I come to the floor today because energy is one of those issues on which we should actually all be able to agree in terms of the basic idea. The basic idea and my goal for this Energy bill is that we make energy in America as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that don't raise costs on American families. I think most of us would consider that to be a worthy, commonsense goal. That is why the Energy bill before the Senate today is so important and why it has such broad bipartisan support. As I said, the bill passed the committee 18 to 4. And this is a bill that actually takes concrete steps to help our country produce the energy we need. I think one of the good ideas in the bill is a provision to speed up permitting for the exportation of liquefied natural gas. Six Democrats have cosponsored this language on the LNG exports as a separate piece of legislation, which is now incorporated into this Energy bill. That is because Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of natural gas to our economy and to our national security. America has the world's largest supply of natural gas in terms of what we are able to produce today. We also have the resources to be a major exporter of this clean and versatile fuel. It is estimated that liquefied natural gas exports can contribute up to $74 billion to America's gross domestic product by the year 2035. All we need is for Washington to give producers some regulatory certainty--certainty that is not there today. To liquefy and to export natural gas requires special production and special export terminals, places to get it done. Under President Obama, the Department of Energy has been very slow and very unpredictable about approving these projects. The Energy bill would expedite the permit process for LNG exports to countries around the world and countries that right now do not have free-trade agreements with the United States. It opens it up to new markets, new customers, people who are friends and allies who want to buy a product we have right here for sale. This legislation would require the Energy Secretary to make a final decision on an export application within 45 days after the environmental review process is completed. It would also provide for expedited judicial review of legal challenges to the LNG export projects because things can get tangled up in legal challenges that can go on for months and years. Finally, the bill requires that exporters publicly disclose the countries to which the LNG is delivered so the American people know whom we are selling to. This legislation doesn't force the administration to approve the projects, it doesn't shut down the environmental reviews, and it doesn't take away anybody's right to voice their opposition; it just says that the Obama administration should do its job in an accountable, timely, and predictable way. This legislation would help create jobs. It would help to reduce our trade deficit, which is something President Obama has said is a priority of his. It would also help the security of America and our allies. That is something which should be a priority for all of us in this body. Speeding up American exports of liquefied natural gas will give our allies an alternative for where they can get the energy they need. It would help our allies reduce their dependence on gas from hostile places, many of whom are now getting it from Russia. Remember, Russia invaded Ukraine largely to get control of the gas pipelines there. Now Iran wants to step up its natural gas business as well--Iran. The Iranians have been working on a liquefied natural gas export plant that is almost complete. Construction had stalled a few years ago because of the economic sanctions against Iran. Now that the Obama administration has lifted the sanctions against Iran, Iran can start construction again. The managing director of the National Iranian Gas Export Company says that it could start shipping liquefied natural gas to Europe in 2 years. That was in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. The headline is ``Iran Seeks Ways To Ship Out Gas As Sanctions Ease.'' This is today. What we are discussing on the floor of the Senate is incredibly timely. When you read through the article, it says that European companies are promising billions in new deals in Iran as Iranian President Ruhani visits Europe this week to revive trade and political ties. So Iran is on the move. The Obama administration, as of right now, is shackling American natural gas, shackling the production, shackling the export. At the same time, the President, through his agreement with Iran, is enabling Iran to move forward and seek ways to ship out gas as sanctions ease. If our allies are dependent on gas from Russia or from Iran or from both, how does that make the world a safer place? This administration has been dragging its feet on approving liquefied natural gas exports. It has blocked North American energy projects in the past, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline. That would have created thousands of jobs. Then, earlier this month, the Secretary of the Interior halted all new leases on mining coal on Federal land. This action by the administration is alarming, it is drastic, and it is destructive. Forty percent of all the coal produced in the United States comes from Federal land. The Interior Secretary wants the coal to stay in the ground, wants it to become a stranded asset. With this new rule, she took one more step toward wiping out the jobs of thousands of Americans, and then she staged a press conference to brag about it. If that weren't bad enough, last week the administration announced new restrictions on oil and gas operations on Federal land and on Indian land. The unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats of the Obama administration have been relentlessly attacking American energy producers with new rules, new regulations--costly--hurting our economy, hurting jobs. They are costing American workers and families billions of dollars, and they will do great damage to American energy reliability. Reliability is key. We need a different approach. It is essential that we create as much energy as possible here at home, and it is essential that we be able to export American energy to our allies as well, people who want to get it from us. That is why energy is called the master resource, and that is why this Energy bill is so important. This legislation is a good start toward making sure America has the energy we need to keep our economy growing. There are things we could do to improve this legislation. We could use this bill to protect Americans from President Obama's reckless attempt to end coal leases on Federal lands. We can also make sure the Obama administration stops its unwise new rule on natural gas and oil operations. We can actually capture more energy while we reduce waste and emissions from this kind of oil and gas production. I have introduced bipartisan legislation that is going to expedite the permitting process of natural gas gathering lines on Federal and Indian land. These are pipelines that collect unprocessed natural gas from oil and gas wells and ship it to a processing plant and then on to interstate pipelines. Today a lot of that gas is flared off right at the well. You can see that at the well, the flames. One of the reasons that is happening is because the Obama administration has been so slow in granting the permits for the natural gas gathering lines on Federal land. People want to build them; they want to use this natural gas. The President opposes the flaring. More gathering lines would mean less flaring. It is good for energy producers, it is good for the environment, and it is good for taxpayers. We need the energy. Keeping it in the ground is not the answer. The answer is making energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs on American families. I believe that is a better approach. A bipartisan group of Members of this body knows it is a better answer. It is time for the Obama administration to join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Morgan Wallace 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. Morgan is a native of Teton Village, WY, and she currently attends the Madeira School. Morgan is involved with soccer, lacrosse, and basketball at school. She has also volunteered with the Special Olympics and the World Wildlife Fund. 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 weeks. I want to thank Morgan Wallace 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 want to agree and second everything that my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, had to say--that 99.7 percent of his State is underwater according to the EPA. We had a hearing, and I looked at a map of Wyoming that the EPA presented. It looked like the entire State of Wyoming was underwater, according to the EPA. This is an incredible overreach on the part of this administration, this EPA. It is so interesting, because the President of the United States said: Well, if you have better ideas, bring them. If you have better ideas, bring them. Well, we did. A number of us cosponsored bipartisan legislation--a number of Democrats supported it, as well--to allow for Congress to establish the principles of what a new EPA rule would look like. It didn't say to get rid of the whole thing. It said there are ways to make it better; let the people on the ground make those decisions. Who are the best stewards of the land? Here we are. The Presiding Officer, the former Governor of South Dakota, knows that the people of his State have a much better love of the land of South Dakota, just as the former Governor of North Dakota, who is on the floor, knows that the people on the ground in North Dakota have a much greater love of the land and respect for the land and desire to protect the land and the water and to keep the water clean, just as we do in Wyoming and in Missouri. That is what this is about. It is about letting people who have the best interests and who are the best stewards of the land make those decisions--not, again, a Federal grab. It is absolutely absurd, and it shows a President of the United States who is acting in a way that I believe is lawless to the point that the courts have now weighed in. The courts have begun to weigh in on the concerns with this rule that we are going to vote on today. We hope we override the veto of the President, because the courts have said: Hey, we need to take a pause. Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota on August 27 issued an injunction that blocked the waters of the United States rule in 13 States because he said the rulemaking record was ``inexplicable, arbitrary, devoid of a reasoned process''--devoid of a reasoned process. Yet the President is saying: Oh, no, they have got it all right. The President is wrong. The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals put a nationwide stay on the rule in October. The court stated in granting the stay that ``the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule's definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being.'' Yet the President of the United States ignores it all. Congress needs to have a say. The courts are having a say. The President needs to realize that his actions have huge impacts--negative impacts--on the economies of our States, our communities, and certainly of the entire country. So it is a privilege to be here to join my colleagues from South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, and soon my colleague from Iowa who will weigh in, supporting the effort to override the President of the United States on this specific piece of legislation.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, tonight President Obama will be coming to Congress to deliver his final State of the Union Address. His advisers have been all over television talking about what the President is planning to say. Tonight, I expect President Obama will talk a little about the health care law. Last year in his State of the Union Address, the President bragged--he actually bragged--that more people have insurance now than when he took office. I expect he will probably say something similar tonight. I wish to talk a little bit about the other side of the story. I want to talk about what President Obama is not going to say tonight to the American people. The President is not going to admit that many Americans are actually worse under his health care law. He is not going to say that under the health care law there is a very big difference between health law insurance and being able to actually get health care. The President focuses on the word ``coverage'' and, as a doctor, I focus on the word ``care.'' The New York Times had an article about this just the other day. The article on page 1 of Monday, January 4, says: ``Many Holdouts Roll the Dice And Pay I.R.S., Not an Insurer.'' They would rather pay the penalty to the Internal Revenue Service rather than pay the insurance company. Why? Turn to page A9 of the same day, January 4, 2016: ``Many Who Refuse Insurance See I.R.S. Penalty as Most Affordable Option.'' The most affordable option for the American people is not the Obama health law insurance. It is actually paying the IRS the penalty. The article tells the story about a number of different people. One is named Tim Fescoe from Culver City, CA. He and his wife had an insurance plan that cost them more than $5,000 a year, but it came with a deductible of over $6,000 for each of them--$5,000 for the policy, $6,000 for the deductible for him and another $6,000 for her. Well, they decided to drop the insurance last year. Mr. Fescoe told the New York Times: ``It literally covered zero medical expenses.'' I wonder if President Obama is going to talk about this man tonight, Tim Fescoe. Will we hear anything about him in his speech tonight? Will the President point to him in the gallery as somebody who the President claims to have helped by making insurance so expensive and so unaffordable that it was much better to just pay the penalty than deal with what the mandates of the President's health care law call into play? Is he going to talk about the deductibles and how the out-of- pocket costs have become so high for Americans all across the country? The article also talks about Clint Murphy of Sulfur Springs, TX. Clint Murphy expects that he will have to pay a penalty of about $1,800 for being uninsured this year. The article says that in his view, paying the penalty is worth it if he can avoid buying the President's law health insurance, a policy that costs $2,900 or more. This man in Texas went on to say: ``I don't see the logic behind that, and I'm just not going to do it.'' Is President Obama going to talk about these people--people who think that it is better to pay the steep IRS penalty than buy the President's expensive and, in many ways, useless insurance? There are millions of Americans in this same situation as Clint Murphy, as Tim Fescoe, and other people who are mentioned in a story in the New York Times. If the New York Times is writing about it--they are supporters of the health care law--even they are pointing to the damage that this very unpopular law continues to do to the American people. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 7 million Americans were finding it cheaper to pay the tax penalty than to pay for this unusable insurance. Look at this chart. Of those people who don't get subsidies and are not eligible for subsidies, 95 percent would pay--all of these people--less for the tax penalty than for an ObamaCare bronze plan, which is the cheapest level of plan that there is. So for people who don't get a subsidy from Washington, 95 percent of them would pay less by paying the tax penalty than they would for an ObamaCare bronze-level plan with high deductibles and high copays--so high that the people who look at it say: It is unusable. Now, remember, again, these bronze plans are the cheapest option, and the people are just saying no because even the cheapest option under ObamaCare is more expensive than dropping insurance and paying the penalty. Bronze plans are the ones most likely to have a $5,000 to $6,000 deductible per individual on the plan. Do we expect President Obama to talk about any of these things tonight or any of these people who have been harmed by his law? After the President gives his State of the Union Address, much has been made that he is going on a tour of America. He is going to visit Baton Rouge, LA, and Omaha, NE. What the President may not know and certainly won't mention is how much ObamaCare premiums have increased in those States he is going to visit. In Louisiana, prices for the benchmark silver plan on the ObamaCare exchange went up over 9 percent this year. In Nebraska, the same benchmark silver plan rates went up almost 12 percent this past year. Now that is for the people who are willing to actually shop around and switch their insurance from last year to try to hold down the costs. Remember when the President said this: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Well, if you only want a 9-percent or a 12-percent increase, you can't keep your plan. You have to try to shop around and switch to a different plan, maybe even change your doctors and the hospital you go to. That is the only way you can find rates of insurance that still go up a lot but don't go up even higher by staying with what you had. The President probably won't mention that when he goes to Louisiana or Nebraska. He probably won't mention either that the ObamaCare co-ops in both of the States that he is visiting collapsed last year-- fundamentally collapsed. Tens of thousands of people lost the insurance they had in those States, and now the taxpayers are on the hook for over $100 million. The law has not come anywhere near what President Obama promised the people of Louisiana or the people of Nebraska or the people of America. All across the country, the American people know that ObamaCare was not what they wanted. They know that it has never been the right answer for the problems in our health care system. That is why majorities in both Houses of Congress voted recently to repeal the key parts of the Obama health care law. We passed the legislation, and we sent it to the President's desk. When President Obama vetoed the bill, he rejected the judgment of the American people. In his speech tonight, I expect the President to continue to pretend that there are no problems at all with American health care under his law. Well, Republicans are going to keep offering solutions to fix health care in America. Almost 6 years ago President Obama sat down with Members of Congress to try to sell us his health care law. I was part of that roundtable discussion. I told the President at the time that low-cost catastrophic plans could be a good option for people as long as they could use health savings accounts to help pay their day to day medical bills. The President had no interest in that idea or in any of the Republican ideas that we brought forward that day. So now, under his law, people are left with the equivalent of catastrophic coverage and they are paying far too much for it because of all of the law's mandates. On top of that, the law cuts back on health savings accounts. The law specifically cut back on that so people all across the country have fewer options to help them pay for their care. Republicans are going to continue to bring up better ideas. We will talk about real solutions that give people more options, not more mandates. We will talk about the ideas that help people get the care they need from a doctor they want at lower costs, not just as the President talks about coverage--coverage that most Americans find they cannot use. Tonight President Obama is probably going to make a lot more promises. When he does, I think everybody should remember Clint Murphy from Sulfur Springs, TX, who doesn't see the logic in paying for overpriced ObamaCare insurance. They should remember all of the broken promises from the health care law and all of the hardworking Americans who have been hurt by the Obama health care law. Even though President Obama won't admit it tonight, America can do much better. If the President won't say it, then it will be up to Congress to lead on the issue. That is exactly what Republicans intend to do. President Obama's speech tonight will be looking to define his legacy. Tonight and for the rest of the year, Republicans will be offering solutions for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I wish to honor my friend, former Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan, who is being recognized as the 2016 National Western Stock Show's Citizen of the West. It is fitting that Mike was chosen for this special award. He joins a long line of honorees known for their values, ingenuity, and hard work. Mike, a cowboy in every sense of the word, carries these traits and many more in his heart and soul. Mike grew up in the prairie lands of Douglas, WY. His formative years were spent riding horses, shooting coffee cans, and enjoying the vast opportunities for recreation around the area. This appreciation led to a lifelong love of the State and her people. He was enamored with one Wyoming native in particular. Mike met Jane Metzler, who was born in Riverton and raised in Powell, during their studies at the University of Wyoming. Both of them were involved in social clubs and organizations. They even served together in the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming Student Senate. In 1961, the sweethearts were married. As they put down roots in Casper, they never lost sight of the important values that guide the people of our great State. Wyoming is the first State to adopt an official code of ethics, which we proudly call our Cowboy Ethics. This list of 10 principles serves as a guide for the modern cowboy and represents the distinct values that the American West is famous for. One of the tenets, ``Take pride in your work,'' brings to mind Mike and his incredible work ethic. With a petroleum engineering degree and a law degree, both earned at the University of Wyoming, Mike set his sights on practicing law. Well-loved and respected by many in the State, he ran--and was elected--to be Wyoming's 29th Governor in 1986. During his two terms, he governed the way he practiced law, with common sense and general decency. His leadership was crucial as at that time the State was experiencing one of its most economically trying periods. Falling oil and gas prices provided an opportunity for him to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats and Republicans alike to develop solutions to benefit the State and her residents. He is well known for his bipartisanship, which has brought lasting change and has resulted in a better quality of life for everyone living in the West. His political career did not end after serving as Governor. In 1999, President Bill Clinton appointed him to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. He graciously accepted the position, and he and Jane moved to Dublin. His service as Ambassador surpassed all expectations of success. Mike was instrumental in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the United Kingdom. With his special brand of warmth, humility, and integrity, Mike dutifully served both the United States and the world in this important role. Another of the principles listed in the Cowboy Ethics code is ``Ride for the brand.'' Upon meeting him, it is immediately apparent that Mike lives and breathes the spirit of the West. He has an intimate knowledge of the issues facing western States today, including the challenges of balancing energy development with natural resource preservation. He is a natural leader, and his passion for the State has served him well in many other important roles. During his tenure as Governor, he was the chairman of the Western Governors' Association, as well as the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which focuses on the responsible, environmentally sound development of America's oil and gas resources. He has won numerous awards in honor of his service and commitment to giving back, including a Distinguished Service Medal from the Wyoming National Guard, an award of merit from the Wyoming Heritage Society, and the President's Award from the Wyoming State Bar. Despite these grand honors, Mike remains humble, choosing to spend time with his wife and family while enhancing his community and State. He certainly does ride for the brand. Mike's accomplishments are numerous, and for every one of them, his beloved wife, Jane Metzler Sullivan, has been by his side. As a third generation Wyoming native, Jane possesses an incredible value system reflective of the State's moral compass. Every bit a presence as her husband, Jane prides herself on making contributions to her community and State. She once said, ``Communities give us the opportunity to make our lives meaningful.'' The couple has been married for 54 years. Today, they enjoy the company of their three children and their spouses: Michelle Sullivan and Bryan Kuehl, Patrick and Ming Sullivan, and Theresa and JR Twiford. They adore their seven grandchildren: Patrick, Maggie, Caitie, Caitlyn, Michael, Jack, and Julia. I am confident that both Mike and Jane delight in sharing the best parts of their souls with their loving family. Mike has been gifted with bright ideas and a subtle sense of humor. He is jovial and kind and remains deeply active in the community of Casper. Folks who know him love him. He is a seasoned diplomat, a generous patron, and a passionate advocate for Wyoming. He champions Wyoming's cowboy spirit, and his mission to preserve and share the legacy of the American West with others is truly outstanding. I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating this incredible man as he is named the 2016 Citizen of the West. We simply could not ask for a better leader, role model, or friend.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the weekend, countries meeting in Paris signed a broad new climate agreement. President Obama called the agreement a success. He said it was a ``strong agreement.'' Despite the fanfare, let's keep some things in perspective. There are important parts of this agreement that can do a great deal of damage to American jobs and the American economy. That should be and is a big concern to the American people. Parts of the agreement can do damage to our jobs and our economy. At the same time, important parts are not binding on other countries. The American people are right to wonder if the White House has signed yet another terrible deal just to try to shore up the President's legacy. Earlier this year, President Obama was so anxious, so desperate to get a deal with Iran over its nuclear program that the President signed a terrible deal. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran has ``seriously undermined'' the agency's ability to verify what Iran has done. Here we are again. It is another bad deal, and other countries that signed it are already ignoring it. India is the world's third largest emitter of carbon. The agreement was on Saturday. This agreement tied plans to meet their emissions targets to getting U.S. taxpayer dollars. Then on Monday--just yesterday--India said it has plans to double its coal output by 2020. Is that what President Obama calls, in his mind, a success? A Gallup poll came out yesterday that showed that the American people's biggest concern is not climate change; it is terrorism. Only 3 percent of all Americans said that pollution or the environment was the most important problem facing America today. President Obama says climate change is our biggest threat. President Obama continues to put a priority on things that he expects to help his legacy, not on the issues the American public actually are concerned about. As elected representatives, we should not allow the President to buy a legacy for himself using American taxpayer dollars. I am willing to sit down with any Democrat who wants to work on a realistic, responsible, and achievable plan to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs on American families. That should be our goal: coming together to find a real solution, real- world solutions, things that work, not just signing a symbolic agreement that does not solve anything, something that may make the President feel good but doesn't actually do good. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate can do it. Just look at all we have accomplished this year working together. It has been a very productive year in the Senate. I am not the only one saying it. Last Wednesday, U.S. News & World Report said: ``There's reason for optimism on Capitol Hill ahead of a looming deadline to pass a trillion-dollar omnibus funding measure.'' The magazine asked: ``What is behind it?'' Well, they said: ``After years of partisan gridlock, Congress has seemingly regained its ability to get things done.'' After years of partisan gridlock, Congress has seemingly regained its ability to get things done. The bipartisan policy committee said the same thing recently. They pointed out that the House and Senate have both made important progress this year. They said: ``Both chambers have reinvigorated a robust committee process.'' Getting committees back to work is essential to getting Congress back to work, and that is what Republicans have done this year. So far this year, the total number of days worked is up from last year by almost an additional 3 weeks of work on the Senate floor. This is in comparison to when Harry Reid was in charge. We have been considering a lot more amendments this year as well. For all of last year, there were only 15 up-and-down votes on amendments--15 for the entire year. So far this year, we have voted on over 200 amendments. These are amendments both by Democrats and Republicans. These are opportunities for individual Senators to stand up, offer their ideas, and be heard--ideas that they think will make America better, make legislation better, not just what the leader of the party wants, Senator Reid, who blocked so many amendments--not just what Senator Reid might think is best for the President, no; what the American people think is important. So when you look into the substance of what we have done, the news is even better for the American people. So far this year we passed major legislation that has been helping Americans all across the country. We passed an important law on Medicare to make much needed reforms and to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. We passed the first multiyear highway bill since 2005. We passed the longest reauthorization of the highway trust fund in almost a decade. These aren't just short-term patches for a few months or a year. That is what happened when the Democrats were in charge. These are long-term fixes that create the certainty and the stability our economy needs. This year the Senate passed the most significant education reform since 2002. We passed an important human trafficking law. We passed a budget. Can you imagine that? There hasn't been a budget passed in both Houses of Congress since 2009. We passed one this year. As chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can tell you that we have made a lot of progress this year on legislation to improve the lives of people across Indian Country. We passed a measure that will help make crucial and long overdue improvements on roads on tribal lands. Last week we passed legislation that helps give tribes more economic opportunities. It gives them more control over developing their natural resources. Republicans are eager to work with Democrats and to produce legislation the President will sign. We are proud of the accomplishments of this year. At the same time, we are not afraid to challenge President Obama's most misguided and dangerous policies. That is why the Senate passed legislation repealing ObamaCare to ease Americans' pain under this law. We passed a measure on the Keystone XL Pipeline to create jobs, energy security, and economic growth, and we put that bill on the President's desk to force him to finally make a decision. We challenged President Obama's job-crushing energy regulations by voting to block his power plan and his devastating rules on waters of the United States. I wish to point out, looking at a headline from yesterday's New York Times, that EPA broke the law with regard to pushing their water rule. The EPA broke the law, which is this issue of this whole waters of the United States. The EPA must be held accountable--accountable for breaking the law, accountable for misuse of government funds. We will hold this administration accountable. Of course we also oppose the President's nuclear deal with Iran. We have shown the American people we can get things done, and there is a viable alternative to the reckless policies coming out of the White House. Looking back on what we have been able to do this year, I think there is real reason for optimism. The Senate doesn't need to be the place of gridlock that it had become under Harry Reid. In 2016 the Senate will be taking more votes on important legislation and on amendments. There will be more debates, more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle. That is what the American people have sent us to do. That is what they expect from us. The American people have seen it is possible to govern and that not everything in Washington is broken. It takes leaders who are committed to getting things done and committed to looking out for the best interests of the American people. This is the end of the year, but it is not the end of this Congress. It is not the end of what the Senate can do to make the lives of the American people better. We have done a lot. There is still a lot of work to be done over the next month and the next year. We will continue to work to relieve the burden and the expense of excess government regulations, to reduce the power of unelected, unaccountable Washington bureaucrats, and to return to the States and to the people more of the control that belongs to them. The goal is to give people at home the power to make their own decisions about what is best for them, their communities, and their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015, in room SDG-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Sudden Price Spikes in Off-Patent Drugs: Perspectives from the Front Lines.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Political and Security Crisis in Burundi.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

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 December 9, 2015, at 11 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program After the Paris Attacks.''

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 December 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

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 December 9, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 December 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

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 December 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

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 December 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United Nations Peacekeeping and Opportunities for Reform.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2015.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week the United Nations climate change conference is continuing in Paris. I understand over the weekend a number of Democrats went to Paris to watch a part of the discussion. I have been talking to folks back home in Wyoming about this climate conference and what the Democrats are proposing, and I will tell you, the people in Wyoming are not happy. They are not happy about President Obama's plan to destroy American energy jobs and also to destroy the communities that depend on these jobs. They are not happy about the President's plan to give away billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to other countries. They are not happy about the President's plan to ignore the will of the American people and to sign an expensive, destructive treaty on climate change in Paris. That is what they think the President is planning to do, and I believe they are exactly right. Last Friday, the Foreign Relations subcommittee that I chair released a new report called ``Senate Outlook on United States International Strategy on Climate Change in Paris 2015,'' a new report on President Obama's plan to bypass Congress and transfer American taxpayer funds overseas. This report shows how President Obama is supporting an effort to bypass Congress and to sign a climate deal that gives money to developing nations. The subcommittee report found four things. First, the report says that the President is making false promises to other countries about his ability to meet his own greenhouse gas reduction targets. President Obama has promised to cut back American energy production dramatically. The administration is pushing powerplant regulations that will destroy jobs and make electricity more expensive and less reliable. Bipartisan majorities in Congress, in the House and in the Senate, have rejected these regulations. President Obama wants to use this international agreement to force new regulations on the American people. This administration has been doing all that it can to cripple American energy producers all across the country. It has piled new regulations on coal producers. It is blocking exports of American crude oil and liquefied natural gas. It set emission standards that are designed to put powerplants out of business, and that is the second thing that the report found--that the President's unrealistic targets and timetables for reducing targeted emissions are threatening jobs and threatening communities all across America. The third main point in this report is that the President is forcing American taxpayers to pay for it--to pay for our past economic successes through his contributions to the so-called Green Climate Fund. I did a townhall event the other day in Wyoming and asked what they thought about the President's plan of using their taxpayer dollars in this way, and 94 percent of the people in the townhall said they opposed President Obama's plan to send their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the United Nations climate slush fund. President Obama doesn't care. He says he wants the money anyway. He knows American emissions have actually been declining over the last decade. He knows we are not the biggest source of carbon dioxide in the world. Far more emissions are coming from developing countries. We see it in China; we see it in India. Those countries say that if they are going to cut their emissions, if they are going to be part of President Obama's plan, somebody else is going to have to pay up. They expect developed countries such as the United States to foot the bill. How much money do they want? What are we talking about? So far, developing countries have said they want--the number is astonishing--at least $5.4 trillion--not million, not billion, but trillion. That is what 73 developing countries are demanding over the next 15 years. It doesn't even count another 90 developing countries that haven't made their demands public yet. The reality is a great deal of this money is going to end up lining the pockets of government officials in these developing countries. The American people know it. They see through it, even though the Obama administration will not admit it. That brings up the fourth thing that this report found. Our subcommittee found that the President plans to reach a climate change deal that ignores the American people and cuts them out of the process entirely. The American public doesn't want these policies. Congress has passed laws to change these policies. The Obama administration just goes on and on and makes the rules that it wants anyway. This administration refuses to have accountability to the American people. What are we talking about with regard to the money? It is interesting because just today, this morning from Paris, there is a report from the New York Times: ``U.S. Proposes Raising Spending on Climate-Change Adaptation.'' Here is the byline from France: In an effort to help smooth the passage of a sweeping new climate accord here this week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday a proposal to double its grant-based public finance for climate-change adaptation. . . . Mr. Kerry's announcement came as the momentum toward a deal appeared to have hit a momentary snag. Why? Well, reading further: ``The issue of money has been a crucial sticking point in the talks, as developing countries demand that richer countries open up their wallets. . . . '' So John Kerry is there to open up the wallet of the American taxpayers--because it is not his money--doubling what he is offering, to try to buy a solution that he wants to accomplish even though it is directly in opposition to the American public. This administration, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, are out of touch with the American people, who reject this expensive and destructive energy and climate policy. The Obama administration is also out of touch with the rest of the world. The Obama administration says that some parts of the agreement reached in Paris will be legally binding and other parts will not because, obviously, we are the Congress. We are the elected representatives of the American people, and we have a say. So the President is saying that parts of the agreement are binding and parts are not. China says the whole thing is binding. The European Union says the entire thing is binding. Who is right? President Obama or the rest of the world? The Obama administration says it is going to give billions of our taxpayer dollars to these countries, including to a lot of countries that don't like us very much. That doesn't seem to matter to the President. The developing countries say they want trillions. John Kerry is in Paris today, doubling the amount of money, doubling to try to buy support for something the American people don't support. It is interesting because, if you think back just a couple of months, President Obama was frantic--desperate--to get a deal with Iran over its nuclear programs because of his legacy. He signed a terrible deal-- by all accounts, a terrible deal. Now he is doing it again. He is once again frantic, once again desperate, to get a climate deal in Paris. Why? Because of his so- called legacy. He is planning once again to sign a terrible deal, and he has his Secretary of State, John Kerry, there giving the speeches and making promises that the American public will have to pay for if they get their way. Iran says it will play the Obama administration's game on emissions and reduce its carbon emissions as the President wants, but before it does, it expects the Obama administration to lift all of the remaining sanctions from the Iranian deal. It wants the United States and other countries to give them $840 billion over the next 15 years. That is what is at stake, and those are the things the President continues to give away as he surrenders our energy security, our energy reliability, our energy jobs--a surrender by the President. He is desperate for approval by the other countries when he should be focusing on the United States. He seems to want to promise any policy, pledge any amount of money to get it, but the American people oppose sending their money to a United Nations climate slush fund. As their elected representatives, Congress must not allow the President to continue to try to buy popularity for himself using American taxpayer dollars. Congress must not allow the President to use this meeting in Paris to advance his own legacy at the expense of the American people and the American economy. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.