John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Brandon Wedl for his hard work as an intern in Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Brandon is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. He currently attends the University of Wyoming. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I thank Brandon for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kylie Taylor 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. Kylie is a native of Cheyenne, WY, and a graduate of Cheyenne East High School. She recently graduated from the University of Wyoming. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I thank Kylie for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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 wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Shelby McRee for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Shelby is a native of Casper, WY, and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends Casper College. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I thank Shelby for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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 wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Otto Martinek for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Otto is a native of Teton Village, WY, and a graduate of St. Mark's School of Texas. He currently attends the University of Texas at Austin. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Otto for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as a part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kaitlin Krell for her hard work as an intern in the Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Kaitlin is a native of Kemmerer, WY, and a graduate of Kemmerer High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I thank Kaitlin for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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 wish to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Abbey Engen for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Abbey is a native of Casper, WY, and a graduate of Natrona County High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I thank Abbey for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as a 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, on Monday, the United Nations Security Council voted to accept the agreement that was negotiated over Iran's nuclear program. I think it is very telling that President Obama decided to take his plan to the United Nations before bringing it to the Congress. I think the President is hoping to force Congress--to bully Congress--to go along with his plan without actually giving it serious debate. Well, we are going to have a serious debate. I believe President Obama and his negotiators failed to get the strong deal they promised, and it remains to be seen whether this deal is good enough. United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power called me after the deal had been agreed to by the President and by Iran and she told me the greatest weakness of the deal was its complexity. So I have to ask: Why is the President in such a rush? The American people have every right in the world to have their voices heard on this important issue. I was at home in Wyoming over the weekend and I got an earful about why this deal is so bad and about the risk it poses to our own U.S. national security. Congress also has the right and the responsibility to provide oversight on this plan, and there has been bipartisan skepticism and concern on this floor about this specific deal. So we need to take a very close look at the agreement over the next 2 months. We are going to listen to our constituents, and we will have hearings to make sure all the facts are clear, starting tomorrow in the Foreign Relations Committee. While the Senate does its part in evaluating the deal, I think we have to keep in mind two key questions. First, do we believe this is a good deal that will protect the American people, protect our allies far into the future and not just for a few years and, second, what evidence is there that the Iranian regime plans to change its illegitimate and dangerous behavior in any way? This agreement accepts Iran as a nuclear threshold state on the premise that we can build a better relationship with the country's leaders. How realistic is that? Iran is still holding American hostages. Iran continues to support Bashar Assad in Syria. Iran continues to support Palestinian terrorist groups. Even President Obama admits this behavior is likely to continue under the deal he negotiated. Can we afford to allow this Iranian regime to have the nuclear program it will get at the end of this deal? President Obama wants to put off the answer to this question until after he has left office. Congress needs the answer now. People on both sides of the aisle have raised many appropriate concerns about this deal. One issue is that before the agreement was announced, Iran had more than 19,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. After the deal is fully implemented, Iran will still have more than 19,000 centrifuges. Not a single one will be dismantled under this agreement. Some of them may go into storage, some of them may be turned off, but eventually that could be brought back again and turned back on. More than 5,000 of them will continue to spin and to enrich uranium. Iran can continue to conduct research and development on more advanced centrifuges. It says right in the deal that ``Iran will continue testing'' advanced centrifuges--and it can actually manufacture them for specific purposes. Once the restrictions end, Iran can produce as many of these advanced centrifuges as it wants. They will have already done the work and they will know how to build them and how to use them. President Obama had the leverage--he had the leverage--to push for more on this point. Why didn't he use it? This bill doesn't dismantle a single centrifuge; it does dismantle the sanctions against Iran. That is another very real concern a lot of people have. While it will not happen overnight, Iran is likely going to gain access to what will eventually amount to more than $100 billion. This massive injection of resources is ultimately a direct deposit into Iran's terrorism accounts. Why was there nothing in this agreement to stop Iran from using this money in ways that could harm America and our allies? And there is the extremely important issue of whether this agreement allows us to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities anywhere and anytime. President Obama said that is how we would verify that Iran was living up to its promises. It turns out that the reality is very different from what the White House promised. Now the President says that inspectors will have access ``where necessary, when necessary.'' That is a big difference. Who gets to decide what is necessary? Under the actual agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency can request--can request--access to a location in Iran if it is worried. That is not anywhere, any time; that is anywhere, anytime Iran chooses. Iran can refuse to give access to the site, and it gets 2 weeks to negotiate what inspectors can do. If the two sides can't work it out within 14 days, then the issue gets turned over to a commission of eight countries that are part of the agreement. Then the Commissioners have another 17 days to resolve the issue by a majority vote. After that, Iran gets another 3 days to comply. It is as much as 24 days in total. So we went from anywhere, anytime, 24/7, to 24 days. A former Deputy Administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about this very subject. He said 24 days is ``ample time for Iran to hide or destroy evidence.'' Twenty-four days, which is what the President agreed to, is ample time for Iran to hide or destroy evidence. President Obama says we will be able to tell if Iran is violating the agreement. That is an important difference of opinion, and Congress is going to have to resolve that over the next 2 months. It is very clear President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were desperate to get a deal with Iran, even if it was a very bad deal. Both the President and the Secretary of State are lameducks, and they are looking to build their legacy. Iran knew that, and Iran took advantage of that fact. At the last minute, to make sure they could actually get a deal signed, the President and the Secretary of State agreed to let Russia sell Iran ballistic missile technology. This technology can be used to attack our allies and even to threaten the United States. Why was this even a part of this agreement over Iran's nuclear program? The week before the deal was announced, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' So why did it end up as part of the deal? Why did the President, yet again, ignore the advice of his military commanders on this vital national security issue? At the end of the day, this deal does not take away Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. It merely gets Iran to promise that for the next few years it will walk down the path very slowly. President Obama may think this deal is good enough to help his legacy. There are still a lot of questions about whether it is good enough to keep the American people safe and the rest of the world as well. Our goal all along should have been an agreement that was accountable, enforceable, and verifiable. At this point, I have serious doubts about whether this deal is good enough. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, late last month, the Supreme Court issued a severe rebuke to the Obama administration and to his Environmental Protection Agency. It was a strong stand against Washington overreach. The Environmental Protection Agency had written what it called the mercury and air toxics standards rule. The rule was a key part of the Obama administration's war on coal. The Supreme Court said that when Washington bureaucrats were writing this rule, they failed--the EPA failed--to consider the overwhelming costs they were imposing on hard- working American families. The Court said: ``One would not say that it is even rational, never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and environmental benefits.'' It wasn't even rational, never mind appropriate. The Court's decision was exactly right, and many of us saw it as a big step forward in reining in this out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency. Here is the problem. The rule came out in 2012, and the Supreme Court didn't make its ruling until 2015. That is 3 years. It is far too late for many Americans who work at coal plants and who have already been hurt by the EPA's ruling in 2012. That is because power companies were already having to comply with that rule while it made its way through the court process. They have already closed plants because of the rule, even though the Supreme Court now says that the rule was inappropriate, it was wrong. Now, unemployed workers won't get their jobs back now that the Court has ruled against the Obama administration. Because of these regulations, people are already paying higher electricity rates than they would have been paying otherwise. Consumers don't get their money back, either, now that the Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority. This isn't the first time this Agency has gone beyond the law and beyond what it is allowed to do. That is what it did when it put out its so-called waters of the United States rule. It is a recent rule-- waters of the United States. It is a new regulation. The Agency wants to use it to greatly expand government control over the Nation's land and water. Farmers, ranchers, hard-working families would no longer be able to decide what to do with their own land. States, counties, and towns would no longer be able to decide what regulations will be best to protect the streams and the waters and the lakes within their borders. That is the problem. These decisions would now be made by Washington bureaucrats no matter what the cost, no matter how small the benefits or how large the cost. Not only did the Agency increase its authority dramatically, it appears that it abused the rulemaking process to get the results the EPA wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, when Washington writes big, expensive regulations, it is supposed to have a public comment period so that people who might be harmed by the rules can have their say. According to news reports, when the EPA was writing the waters of the United States rule, the EPA twisted the public comment process into its own private, government-funded spin machine. This government agency ignored the negative comments by Americans who were actually concerned about the law and who were hurt by the law. That is not what I am saying; that is what the New York Times said when it reported on the scandal back in May. The New York Times said that the EPA used taxpayer dollars to lobby liberal groups to flood the Agency with positive comments. These were the same phony, ginned-up comments that it used to justify the dramatic overreach of its new regulations. It is incredible, it is unbelievable, and I believe it is also illegal. If my colleagues want another example of overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency, look at the regulations it wrote to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced by powerplants. It is called the Clean Power Plan. When the EPA was writing this rule, it did the exact same thing the Supreme Court just said was not even rational. The EPA counted up what it said would be the benefits of the regulation without caring at all about the true costs. So what are the true costs? Well, according to one estimate, the new regulations would add up to $366 billion in additional costs over the next 15 years. That cost will be passed on to consumers and will force more powerplants to close and more Americans to lose their jobs. For all of that expense, all of that damage to hard-working families, the benefits would be minimal. The Obama administration makes wild claims about environmental benefits of this regulation. They are the same kinds of claims that it made for the rule the Supreme Court just called unreasonable. The Agency exaggerates the benefits, the Agency ignores the costs, and it puts its thumb on the scale to come up with the policy that it wants. One of the big costs the Environmental Protection Agency has been ignoring is the damaging health effects of the unemployment caused by the regulations. When a powerplant closes, people in those communities lose their jobs and their health suffers. High unemployment increases the likelihood of hospital visits, of illnesses, of premature death. High unemployment raises health care costs, and it hurts children's health and family well-being. Those are real costs to families, to society, and the EPA continues to intentionally ignore them. The Environmental Protection Agency was wrong when it wrote its mercury and air toxics rule, it was wrong when it wrote its waters of the United States rule, and it was wrong when it wrote its powerplant rule. The Supreme Court has said the Environmental Protection Agency needs to take a more honest approach--the Supreme Court telling President Obama's EPA to take an honest approach--and it needs to take the true costs into consideration. That is what States across the country are already doing. Governors in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Texas are refusing to be bullied by the Obama administration. They are refusing to give up their right to decide what is best for their own citizens. I believe these States are taking the right approach. They are waiting to get a true idea of the costs as well as the benefits before they rush to allow rules that would shut down powerplants and put thousands of people out of work. The Supreme Court says that is what Washington should be doing as well. Maybe now the Obama administration will finally listen and start basing its regulations on what the science says is true, not just on what the bureaucrats of the administration wish were true. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I introduced that will improve safety on roads across Indian Country. Roads and bridges in Indian Country are in desperate need of improvement. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, only 17 percent of the roads are considered to be in acceptable condition. The remainder are considered to be in poor and unacceptable condition and many are simply unpaved. According to the National Congress of American Indians, ``These roads are among the most underdeveloped and unsafe road networks in the Nation, even though they are the primary means of access'' throughout these tribal communities. The Centers for Disease Control lists motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death for Native American children. Meanwhile, Indian infants, under the age of 1 year old, are eight times more likely to die in a vehicle-related crash than other children. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Infrastructure and Roads Enhancement and Safety Act, or TIRES Act for short. The TIRES Act supports increasing the safety of roads throughout Indian Country by: streamlining the process to start and complete safety projects, increasing available funding for tribal road programs, and reinstating the tribal facility bridge program. This legislation will reduce the administrative fees that the Bureau of Indian Affairs charges tribes for road work and will speed up the time such projects take to get approved. The TIRES Act also commissions two important road safety studies. In one study, the Department of Interior, in consultation with the Department of Transportation and other relevant Federal agencies, will examine the quality of transportation safety data collected. Such a study can benefit tribes by finding ways to prevent future car crashes and recover damages caused by motorists on roads on Indian reservations. The second study will examine and identify ways to improve safety on all public roads on Indian reservations. The number of lives lost on roads in Indian Country is far too high. Something needs to be done and this bill is a good first step towards improving safety on the roads in tribal communities.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I introduced that will improve safety on roads across Indian Country. Roads and bridges in Indian Country are in desperate need of improvement. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, only 17 percent of the roads are considered to be in acceptable condition. The remainder are considered to be in poor and unacceptable condition and many are simply unpaved. According to the National Congress of American Indians, ``These roads are among the most underdeveloped and unsafe road networks in the Nation, even though they are the primary means of access'' throughout these tribal communities. The Centers for Disease Control lists motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death for Native American children. Meanwhile, Indian infants, under the age of 1 year old, are eight times more likely to die in a vehicle-related crash than other children. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Infrastructure and Roads Enhancement and Safety Act, or TIRES Act for short. The TIRES Act supports increasing the safety of roads throughout Indian Country by: streamlining the process to start and complete safety projects, increasing available funding for tribal road programs, and reinstating the tribal facility bridge program. This legislation will reduce the administrative fees that the Bureau of Indian Affairs charges tribes for road work and will speed up the time such projects take to get approved. The TIRES Act also commissions two important road safety studies. In one study, the Department of Interior, in consultation with the Department of Transportation and other relevant Federal agencies, will examine the quality of transportation safety data collected. Such a study can benefit tribes by finding ways to prevent future car crashes and recover damages caused by motorists on roads on Indian reservations. The second study will examine and identify ways to improve safety on all public roads on Indian reservations. The number of lives lost on roads in Indian Country is far too high. Something needs to be done and this bill is a good first step towards improving safety on the roads in tribal communities.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the deadline for negotiators to strike a deal with Iran on its illicit nuclear program has been extended yet again. The deadline was June 30. It was postponed until Tuesday, and that was put off again for a few more days. According to the Wall Street Journal, the chief negotiator said: We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. That does not mean we are extending our deadlines, we are interpreting [the deadline] in a flexible way. What does that mean? You either have a deadline or you don't have a deadline. By the end of the week, the White House could announce that it has struck a deal or it could say once again it needs more time. If there is a deal, Congress will need to look very closely and carefully at what it actually says. There are some important things that I will be looking for in any agreement that is struck. First and foremost, any deal is going to have to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is going to have to prevent Iran from ever developing a path to a nuclear weapon. It is going to have to ensure that Iran completely discloses its past work on nuclear weapons. Iran is also going to have to submit to an inspection and verification regime that is both extensive and long term--not just inspections when the Iranians want it, when they allow it, or where they say it can occur. That is the only way we can really confirm that Iran's promises are more than empty words. America and other countries should not suspend sanctions until all of these conditions are met. So far, I have not seen much to indicate that our negotiators understand how important these goals are. There appear to be a lot of questions that have not been resolved and a lot of foot-dragging by Iran to try to get additional concessions. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``We're aiming to try to finish this in the timeframe that we've set out.'' Well, that timeframe was 7 months ago, in November of last year. The Obama administration said it had reached what it called an interim agreement in November of 2013, and it said that it had a deadline of 1 year to reach a final agreement. That would have been November of 2014. When November 2014 came along, Iran got 6 more months to bully this administration into giving up even more ground. The deadline has been pushed back time and time again. According to news reports today, it may be pushed back even further. The Obama administration started negotiating with Iran more than 5 years ago. In 2009, President Obama said that we ``will not continue to negotiate indefinitely'' with Iran specifically. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that same year that the window of opportunity for Iran would ``not remain open indefinitely.'' I would love to know what their definition of the word ``indefinitely'' is. I think these missed deadlines are embarrassing for the Obama administration. The administration's willingness to keep extending the talks make it look desperate. You know what. The Iranians know it. That is a big problem. Iran is now demanding that the arms embargo be lifted as part of the negotiations. This recent last-minute demand shows that Iran knows how desperately eager President Obama is for a deal, any deal. This issue was supposed to have been settled already. In April, the White House said that ``important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles'' will be a part of any final agreement. Now Iran is seeing that the President and Secretary Kerry are desperate for an agreement to build their legacy, so it is bringing up the arms embargo again. According to news reports, our negotiators have been willing to make a lot of concessions to get any deal. There was an article recently in the Washington Post about the negotiations. The headline was ``In final hours, Kerry says Iran talks can go either way.'' The article said that negotiators have ``a general feeling that they have come too far to fail.'' I want to be clear. Walking away from these negotiations without a deal is not a failure. Failure would be signing a bad deal. Failure would be lifting sanctions before Iran has shown that it has begun dismantling its nuclear program. Failure would be a deal that does not automatically reinstate sanctions if it turns out Iran is not complying with the deal. Failure would be a deal that allows any money Iran gets from sanctions relief to end up continuing to support terrorism, which Iran does. Failure would be a world that is a much more dangerous place for all of us. So far it seems as if this administration is willing to make a deal at any cost. We have seen one point after another where the administration has apparently agreed to give the Iranians exactly whatever they want. The negotiations went from initially being about stopping Iran's nuclear program to now being an attempt to delay or to manage Iran's nuclear program. Even before the June 30 deadline passed, Senator Menendez said: ``For me, the trend lines of the Iran talks are deeply worrying; our red lines have turned into green lights.'' That is from a Democratic Senator. It was that kind of concern that led Congress--this Senate--to pass a law in May saying that Congress would be able to review any deal with Iran before the Obama administration could lift sanctions. Remember, the Obama administration fought that law--a law with a bipartisan, veto-proof majority in this body. The President didn't want Congress or the American people to have any say at all. Actually, the White House said they were planning to go directly to the Security Council of the United Nations before going to the elected representatives of the people of the United States. Any deal with Iran on its nuclear program would have a huge effect on our security, and the American people do get a say. If somehow the administration manages to strike a deal and it sends over all the necessary materials, Congress--if it is done today--will get 30 days to review it. That is time we can use to make sure it really is in our country's best interest. If the administration can't get us the full text of an agreement before this Friday, the timeline jumps up to 60 days to review it. That is what we said in the law we passed in a bipartisan way this spring. If our negotiators can reach a deal with Iran, whenever that happens, Congress will use the time to look very closely at every word. If our negotiators can reach a deal with Iran, whenever that happens, Congress will make sure that we look at every word and know what is in it. The goal--the entire reason we are having these negotiations--is not just to get Iran to say yes to something; the goal initially was and should remain to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue with that program, the world will be less safe, less stable, and less secure. Any agreement our negotiators come up with must be accountable, must be enforceable, and must be verifiable. If that is not the case, then it is a bad deal, and the Obama administration must not strike a bad deal with Iran. This Nation and the world cannot afford that, and Congress cannot allow it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we will celebrate the 125th anniversary of the day Wyoming became a State on Friday, July 10, 2015. Wyoming's journey to statehood was not without hurdles. In fact, the debate in Congress was contentious. The arguments centered upon one of our most proud accomplishments--a decision made long before Wyoming became a State. On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming territory was the first in the United States to grant women the right to vote. Efforts to attain statehood finally came to fruition 20 years later. It was incumbent on our delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Joseph M. Carey, to convince his colleagues to support the statehood bill. On March 26, 1890, the day of the statehood bill debate, Joseph Carey spoke passionately about Wyoming. His words still hold true today. He said that Wyoming was rich in agricultural possibilities. He explained Wyoming was one of nature's great storehouses of minerals. Joseph Carey also talked about grazing development, educational leadership, widespread railway construction, the model Constitution, and the unique opportunities for women. Yet, opponents to our statehood did not support women having the right to vote. On the same day as Joseph Carey's impassioned speech, Representative William Oates of Alabama argued against our admittance to the Union. He said, ``Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say that in my judgment the franchise has been too liberally extended. Should we ever reach universal suffrage this Government will become practically a pure democracy and then the days of its existence are numbered.'' The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Wyoming's statehood bill with a vote of 139-127. Part of the narrow margin was due to Democrats in Congress fearing that Wyoming would be a Republican State. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on June 27, 1890. President Benjamin Harrison signed the bill into law on July 10, 1890, which led to impromptu celebrations across the State. Newspapers reported a 44-gun salute in Laramie; Douglas celebrated ``louder than ever;'' and ``Rawlins Town is wild.'' The main celebration on July 23 featured a 2-mile parade in Cheyenne consisting of many floats. One float had 42 women representing the older States and a small carriage in which rode three little girls, representing the Goddess of Liberty, the State of Idaho--admitted July 3, and the State of Wyoming. The parade led to the Capitol where Esther Hobart Morris, the first female justice of the peace in the United States from Wyoming, presented a 44-star silk flag, purchased by women of the State of Wyoming to Governor Francis E. Warren. After a 44-gun salute, Mrs. I.S. Bartlett read an original poem, ``The True Republic.'' Her poem ended with the following words: Let the bells ring out more loudly and the deep-toned cannon roar, Giving voice to our thanksgiving, such as never rose before, For we tread enchanted ground today, we're glorious, proud and great; Our independence day has come--Wyoming is a State! As Wyoming marks 125 years of statehood, I encourage my colleagues to join me in celebrating Wyoming's rich heritage, geological wonders and genuine cowboy hospitality that provides a truly wonderful experience to visitors from all over the world.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to congratulate my colleague, the senior Senator from Wyoming, whom I have worked with for many years and who has been a true leader in true health care reform with proposals he has made that would actually help people get affordable care. The Obama health care law, regardless of the ruling of the Supreme Court, continues to be an expensive failure. There have been so many broken promises by this President about health care in America, which, to me, is the reason this health care law--the support for it across the country remains at an alltime low. People were promised that if they liked their coverage, they could keep their coverage. Millions have lost coverage. The President promised: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Millions have lost their doctors. The President said premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. Instead, premiums have gone up, and there is no end in sight. When I take a look at this and say ``Why is the support so low?'' it is because most people believe that for them personally, it is a bad deal. They are paying more in premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles, all of which makes it a bad deal for them personally. I would say that ObamaCare cannot be fixed, but health care in America must be fixed. They say: What are you going to do about it as a Republican? There are incredible Republican plans out there, each of which is much better than the President's health care law. We still have 30 million Americans without insurance, concerned about the fact that they still need care. We are going to continue to work to repeal and replace this health care law with a law that will allow people to get what Senator Enzi had been talking about. We need patients to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. That is what Republicans are committed to, and that is what Republicans, in spite of today's ruling by the Supreme Court, will continue to work for. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and remember one of Wyoming's many World War II heroes, LT Robert ``Stan'' Lowe. On Friday, June 19, 2015, Wyoming and our Nation lost one its most revered veterans advocates. Stan lived to be 92 years old. In 1943, Stan chose to serve his Nation rather than complete his college studies and join the U.S. Merchant Marines. The Merchant Marines' mission was one of the most dangerous and important missions during World War II. The mission was critical to ensuring our servicemen had the resources they needed to ultimately defeat tyranny. While Lieutenant Lowe was keeping the sea lanes open and secure and he also had more than one job. Stan was a staff officer handling payroll and personnel matters, ran the ship store, and carried out chaplain duties. He even served as a tour coordinator for port calls to keep the young mariners out of trouble. In addition to manning their battle stations, this was the life of a Merchant Marine. When Lieutenant Lowe returned to the United States in 1946, he like many of his fellow veterans returned to school. He went on to get a law degree. Like your traditional Merchant Marine, Stan never wore just one hat. He was first a mariner and then an attorney. He served in the Wyoming State House of Representatives and as the Carbon County Attorney. Throughout most of Stan's professional career he served as general counsel to True Oil. Stan was the first commissioner appointed to Wyoming Veterans Commission. He served under two Governors and chaired the commission. He retired with the title of chairman emeritus. Stan never stopped serving our veterans or our community. Stan was a mentor and teacher to many of Wyoming's veterans. In every veteran he came across, he instilled the virtue that the oath servicemen and women take does not expire when you take off the uniform. He strongly believed he had responsibility to help his fellow veterans to honor and respect current servicemen and women and to serve his community. Stan was always very involved in his community working with the Casper Rotary Club and the American Legion to name a few. He always worked behind the scenes for many causes especially for veterans. If it was the veterans' museum, efforts to protect the benefits of the widows of veterans, WWII Honor Flights or veteran license plates, Stan probably had his finger prints all over it. Stan also fought hard to get the Merchant Marines recognized with veteran status. He and Merchant Marines around the Nation finally got this much deserved recognition in 1988. For almost 30 years, on every Memorial Day, Stan would recite Flanders Field at the Oregon Trail Veterans Cemetery. It was always a humbling experience. In his later years, despite the pain, Stan would rise from his chair like a maestro stepping up to a podium. With a quiet tone that could reach the back of the chapel, Stan would begin by reciting the poem. His voice would draw you into a moment in time reminding you of the silence of peace. Children and adults alike would hang on his every word and Stan's voice, like a lullaby, reminded us of soldiers who were loved and paid the ultimate price for freedom. For that moment, you felt warm and secure in their remembrance. As gently he begun he would end and quietly sit. The only sound you could hear was the breathing of the crowd. Stan was preceded in death by his wife Anne ``Pat'' Kirtland Selden Lowe, and is survived by his two children Robert J. Lowe and wife Lanette and Meganne L. Acres and husband Craig, sister-in-law Ruth Selden Sturgill, brother-in-law George L. Selden, grandchildren Parker and Dalton Lowe, Hannah and Ben Acres, niece Lauren and husband Bill Gasmick, nephew John Lefferdink and Lanette's father Jerry Kelly. Stan epitomizes the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and service to our communities. It also epitomizes the Rotary motto ``Service Above Self.'' People like Stan Lowe do not come around often so we thank him for all he has done to make our Nation safe and Wyoming a better State. Stan, my friend, as they say in the Merchant Marines, ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, President Obama spoke at a meeting of the Catholic Health Association, and he told the association that his health care law, as he said, ``worked out better than some of us anticipated.'' Well, I can tell you that the President's health care law has worked out much worse--much worse--than the American people expected. It has worked out much worse than the President promised it was going to work. Hard-working families all across the country are suffering under the President's complicated, confusing, and costly health care law. The new Senator from Michigan just gave his maiden speech this morning, and I welcome him to the Senate. The senior Senator from Michigan just spoke on the floor. Last week, she also spoke on the floor and talked about the millions of Americans who need subsidies to help cover the cost of these outrageously expensive ObamaCare mandates. Well, ObamaCare hurts many of the people in her home State of Michigan. This insurance is going to get a lot more expensive for the people of Michigan next year. The Obama administration released new numbers recently showing how much more people are going to have to pay for their ObamaCare plans next year. There is one company in Michigan that has requested a rate increase of 38 percent. There are more than 20,000 people in Michigan who get their ObamaCare insurance from this company today. These people are looking at the prospect of their insurance costing 38 percent more next year. Other families in Michigan are facing rate hikes of 11 percent or 17 percent or 37 percent, depending on the specific plan they are in. And it is not just happening in Michigan. In Washington State, one company says its premiums next year will be 19 percent higher. There are more than 7,000 people in Washington State who get their insurance from that company. Another company says it is raising its rates 9.6 percent. People in Washington are facing much higher insurance premiums, and they will still have the narrow networks that so many Americans have to deal with because of ObamaCare. When I say ``narrow network,'' I mean fewer choices of hospitals, fewer choices of doctors to take care of them--limited choices, plus paying more. So how big of a problem is it? Well, the Wall Street Journal had an article about these people the other day. On Friday, June 12, the headline was ``Surprises in Health-Law Bills.'' The article says: ``Out-of-network charges often aren't flagged before treatment.'' They call it medical bill shock. This is under the President's health care law--medical bill shock; surprises in health-law bills. The article tells the story of Angela Giboney from Mill Creek, WA--Washington State. She has insurance through the State ObamaCare exchange. She has ObamaCare, make no mistake about it. When she went to have a mammogram, it turned out the place that did the screening was outside her network, so she got a bill for $932. President Obama promised that people would pay less under the health care law. Instead, people all across the country are getting stuck with surprise bills because of these narrow networks. And in spite of that, their premiums are going to jump again next year. Some Democrats say that people shouldn't worry about these dramatic premium increases because the average increase--this is what the Democrats say--in some places won't be that high. Well, there is a new study that looked at the rate requests in eight different States for next year. It says that in those eight States, premiums for the silver plan in the ObamaCare exchange will only go up by, on average, 6 percent. The study says that in Connecticut, the average silver plan is only going to raise premiums 4 percent. It says if you shop around--if you shop around--you might be able to find a new plan next year that will go up by less than your current plan is going up. So they are saying that across the board they are going up. The question is, How much are they going up? And if you shop around, you might be able to find a place they are not going up quite as much as they are with your current plan. Is that what President Obama promised the American people? Did he promise the American people the rates would only go up 6 percent? No, that is not what he promised. He said rates would go down by $2,500 per family, per year. Did President Obama say your rates will go up a little less if you are willing to change plans every year? No. He said if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. That is what the President said. Did the President promise that maybe your rates won't go up by quite as much if you are willing to accept a narrow network of providers? Did he say you should change your doctor every year by switching from plan to plan? No, of course not. He said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I want to make another point about this new study. It is only talking about the average increases across all the plans offered in eight States. Even if the average premium is only going up 6 percent in those eight States, a lot of people are going to end up paying much more. There are families in Connecticut who may have to pay 16 percent more next year. That is how much more one company in Connecticut wants to charge almost 26,000 people who buy the ObamaCare plans today. Does the President think these families are happy that the average increase is only 4 percent when they get an increase of 16 percent? Is that what the President means when he says his health care law is working better than he anticipated--and he said it just last week--because there are a lot of people in Connecticut who say it is not working and it is working much worse than they anticipated. People have been writing to the State insurance department in Connecticut, and they are angry. They are angry with the President and alarmed at the ObamaCare price hikes. One person wrote that their insurance company is requesting a rate increase of 14.3 percent in Connecticut. For Democrats who say the average may be only 4 percent, some people will be paying over 14 percent more next year. The person asks: Does the average worker get a 14-percent salary increase? That is not what the people of Michigan, Washington, Connecticut or anywhere else thought they were going to get when Democrats called the law the Affordable Care Act. Sometime in the next couple of weeks the Supreme Court is going to decide whether it is legal for President Obama to spend some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that he has been spending on the health care law. Now, the decision could affect more than 6 million Americans. Republicans have been watching this case very closely. We have been working on ideas to protect these people and to protect all Americans from the damages caused by the President's health care law. If the Court rules against the President, then Republicans will be ready to sit down with Democrats to improve health care in America. We will take the opportunity to protect the people from ObamaCare's broken promises and to provide freedom to the people who are trapped in Washington-mandated health care. It will be up to the President and Democrats in Congress whether they want to join us or if they want to continue to insist that this law is working better than they anticipated. I hope they will work with us--work with us--on reforms that the American people need, want, and deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 83, S. 611, and Calendar No. 84, S. 653, en bloc.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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 proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 77; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 196, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.