John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I point out that on Saturday, I am going to be in Buffalo, WY, at a health fair. As a doctor, I continue to attend health fairs around the State which are designed to bring low-cost health care screenings to people. I know I will hear from folks there who are concerned with the fact that the CBO has come out and said the premiums are going to go up 8 percent next year, and 8 percent the year after that. Some of them are actually going to be on the ObamaCare exchange. I know some of them are people who had insurance that worked well for them before the President passed his law, and their insurance was canceled. The President and the Senator from Connecticut may list them as successes, but they don't believe it is that way. They had insurance. They had insurance that they liked. It worked for them, and it worked for their family. They had the benefits that were important for their family, things for which they needed insurance. The President, on the health care law, came out with this mandate that everyone buy health insurance, and not just what worked for them. The President described it as essential benefits. I described them as excessive benefits, because there is a lot of insurance they are forced to buy, according to the law, that they do not need, do not want, cannot afford, and it does not even apply to their families. They have no choice in the matter. They have had to lose insurance that worked for them and buy insurance that the President said they had to buy, even though it wasn't what was best for them and their families. They know what is best for them and their families, not President Obama. I expect while I am in Buffalo, WY, visiting people, listening to what they have to say at a health fair, I will hear stories such as that because I do every weekend in Wyoming. People are concerned about the cost. Even those who have been getting subsidies through the exchanges are noticing that deductibles are higher than their previous insurance, and copays are higher. They are paying more. They are paying more and getting less, which is why this health care law continues to be unpopular across the country. Take a look at any of the national numbers that are coming out, and you are going to find many more people who feel they were harmed by the law than helped by the law. There is a ratio of more people who think they were harmed than helped. More people want it repealed than continued. That is what we are seeing across the country with this health care law. The President and I would say we should listen to the American people who have these stories to tell. I was on the floor yesterday, and I talked about a woman from Maine. There was an article in the paper in Maine. She found the whole experience that she has been going through now frightening, and she has insurance through the exchange. She said it is a frightening experience. She did her taxes and found out that she ended up owing a lot of money in taxes that she didn't know she was going to owe because of mistakes that were being made and the way the bookkeeping works. That is what is happening. H&R Block, the insurance folks who do the calculation to help people file their policies, are saying, on average, half of the people filing their returns this year are finding they are getting shocked and surprised that their amount of money coming in to the returns is a lot less, by an average of $530, according to H&R Block. This is across the board. There are a lot of disgruntled people who are disappointed in a President who made promises to them about a health care law, people who can't keep their doctors, high deductibles they can't afford. A study came out yesterday that many people with insurance can't afford anything close to the deductibles they are forced to be paying under the President's insurance that they had to buy, many of whom lost the insurance they liked. We see these problems, and the amount of government waste in this program is incredible. Oregon earlier this week shut down their exchange. The State of Oregon spent $248 million putting together their own State exchange, and the Governor just signed something saying we are done with it. They have not signed up one single person on the Oregon computer exchange ever--$248 million, taxpayer dollars, gone. Gone. The only people who could sign up in Oregon had to do it by filling it out with paper and pen. This is supposed to be--I heard President Obama--as easy as shopping on Amazon; insurance is cheaper than your cell phone; keep your doctor if you like your doctor. That is not what happened under this health care law. People lost their doctors and can't afford their policies. It is a very complicated situation related to this. Then you get Washington State. It is State after State--13,000 people had too much money taken out of their checking account as just part of the regular process of the monthly withdrawals.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would ask my friend and colleague from Connecticut--we have worked closely together on a number of items--a question or two relating to the fact that the CBO report recently came out--just on Monday--and mentioned that the benchmark policy next year is going to be up 8 percent across the board. The benchmark policy will go up 8 percent, meaning higher premiums not just next year, but the year after that, another 8 percent, and then another 8 percent. I would like to know, as a Senator representing people and as a doctor, how many people in his State believe that is actually a good deal. The President promised the people from his State that premiums would drop by $2,500 per family. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House--and my friend from Connecticut was a Member of the House at the time--said premiums would drop for everyone. So we are talking about specifically people buying policies on the exchange. Yet the numbers that came out Monday that the President of the United States is celebrating--and my friend and colleague has a sign up about how this health care law is supposedly working--how that works for people when next year they are going to pay 8 percent more and the year after that 8 percent more, and these are people who are actually getting subsidies who are buying the benchmark insurance through the exchange. I know we are running short on time, but I would ask my colleague to address that specific component because I hear about it every day.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be reserved for Senator Cornyn.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would point out to my friend that the actual reason which he never addressed is that they are going up next year. CBO has suggested they are going to go up 8 percent next year, and 8 percent the year after that, and 8 percent the year after that. The other issue, as he says, is the amount of money spent is because fewer people are signing up. People realize it is not a good deal. I think the CBO at one point thought there would be 14 million people signed up by this point and now it is only 11 million. So the fact that people are deciding to not sign up--to not sign up--is one of the reasons the government, while still spending more money than they were in the past, is spending not quite as much as they thought they might have to, had all the people the President thought would sign up for his idea signed up. So that seems to be the situation, when we actually go into the CBO report. I agree the total dollar figure is less than the high figure anticipated. It has come down some, but it is because fewer people have actually chosen to participate which is because the health care law continues to be unpopular. Many people think it is not a good deal for them; that even though they have subsidies, they can't afford to meet their copay, meet their deductible. Many have insurance, but they can't see a doctor. They have lost their doctor. Those are some of the issues that I think were highlighted in that CBO report that the President ought to be honest about with the American people. The reason for the celebration I think is very premature and actually in error because so many people have been harmed by this law.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I agree entirely with my friend, the Senator from Kansas, and I thank him for his leadership and thoughtful deliberation on this matter. I would like for a moment to talk about this bill that is on the floor, S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I have an amendment that I am offering today on human trafficking in Indian Country. I will tell you that human trafficking is widespread in Indian Country, and we have to do everything we can to stop it. Violent crime rates against women and girls in Native American communities are far higher than the national averages. This amendment delivers help to trafficking survivors and gives tribes the resources they need to battle human trafficking in their own backyards. This amendment has broad support and is a vital addition to the bill on the floor today. My amendment would provide tribes the opportunity to access funding for recovery programs for survivors and special training for local law enforcement in order to combat human trafficking specifically in Indian Country. This amendment would allow Indian tribes to be able to compete for resources for programs to prevent human trafficking. It would provide for training for local tribal law enforcement so they would be better able to track trafficking activities. These trainings and additional resources will better equip the tribal resources to better spot human trafficking in local communities and to act quickly to respond. This funding would also help the survivors of sex and labor trafficking in their recovery. Programs such as this assist survivors in human trafficking and enable them to begin to heal and restore their lives. The bill, S. 178, allows for more protections for victims of human trafficking in our country, and my amendment would extend those protections to the tribes in Indian Country as well. ObamaCare Madam President, I noticed earlier today the minority leader as well as the minority whip on the Senate floor talking about the President's health care law. I would like to point out that the Congressional Budget Office released a report Monday about the Obama health care law--ObamaCare. I see the White House is actually championing the report. They call it great news for America. Let's be clear. This report contains significant amounts of bad news for people--bad news for people who signed up on the ObamaCare exchanges for getting their health insurance coverage. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that health care premiums will increase more than 8 percent a year this coming year for ObamaCare enrollees. They also predict it will increase 8 percent next year for ObamaCare enrollees through the exchange for the benchmark plan, and they predict it will increase another 8 percent a year after that. Most Americans can't afford to pay 8 percent more a year in premiums each and every year, which is what the Congressional Budget Office is proposing, but you don't hear the Democrats on the floor talking about that. Wasn't it the President of the United States who said that premium rates would go down for families by $2,500 a year? Isn't it so that many Senators on the other side of the aisle came to the floor and said rates would go down. Nancy Pelosi said they would go down for everyone. Why are the Democrats not mentioning what the CBO is saying, that year after year after year the rates are going to go up 8 percent, another 8 percent, another 8 percent? So we know the reality of what is happening to people all across the country, which is why this health care law continues to be unpopular, unaffordable, and unworkable. So I think it is time for the White House to stop celebrating and start thinking about the people who have been impacted specifically by this expensive and unworkable piece of legislation. I found it interesting that on Monday, the Secretary of Health and Human Services held an event to celebrate the number of people who had signed up for coverage this year. Secretary Burwell said she was ``pleased with the results to date.'' She repeated the administration's sound bite about the health care law working. Well, that is not what I am hearing from people at home in Wyoming. It is not what I am hearing from my friends, neighbors, and patients. As a doctor who has been taking care of patients in Wyoming for 25 years, I talk to lots of patients every weekend at home. It is also not what I read in the papers. Papers all across the country, from the east coast to the west coast, talk about hard working Americans who have been devastated by the impacts of this terrible health care law. It seems that every day there is more bad news about more ways that ObamaCare is hurting American families and failing to live up to the many promises made by the President and the Democrats in this body who voted for it--the promises they made. When you take a look at the Congressional Budget Office's new estimates of how many people are going to sign up for ObamaCare this year, they had originally said there would be 14 million people who would sign up for ObamaCare plans by the end of the year. Now they have dropped that number down to 11 million people. So it is not a surprise when fewer people--3 million fewer people--sign up, that it is going to cost the taxpayers less than the very high number they were expecting to have to pay. So that number has dropped, but it is because fewer people are choosing to sign up for the Obama health care plan. Is the Obama administration pleased that the President's health care law is so much less popular with the public than the President and Democrats expected it to be? As I talk about some of the stories that are coming out from the east to the west coast, I would like to start with a story from the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Portland, ME. On February 27, the headline was: ``Many insured under Affordable Care Act taking a hit at tax time.'' The article tells the story of Diana Newman, who lives in Southwest Harbor. She had ObamaCare insurance last year. She went to file her taxes a few weeks ago. The article says that ``she got a $400 surprise.'' That is how much she owed on her taxes specifically because of the new health care law. She told the newspaper that her tax troubles are just another stumbling block in what she said was a long, difficult year trying to figure out how to use and how to pay for her new insurance. She said: ``At the end of all this confusion, I was hit with hundreds of dollars at tax time.'' She said: ``It's frightening.'' Frightening--that is how somebody whom the President is claiming has been helped by the law is describing the impact on her life. It is frightening. It turns out she was one of almost a million people who got bad information from the government about their tax forms. Well, that just made things more confusing for her. She said: ``At this point, I don't know what to think. I may owe more, or less, or about the same.'' Is the Obama administration--and all the Democrats who voted for this health care law--pleased about the way it is frightening this woman in Maine? I don't hear the Senate minority leader or the whip talking about that. Does the administration think that ObamaCare is working for Diana Newman? The tax preparation company H&R Block says that more than half of their clients--more than half of their clients--have had their refunds reduced because of the health care law. On average H&R Block says their customers owe the IRS an extra $530. That is a lot of money for hard- working taxpayers. A lot of people count on getting that tax refund to help them pay their bills this time of year. Is the Obama administration pleased to see the IRS take another $530 from hard-working American families? Some of these people who owe money to the IRS didn't sign up for ObamaCare insurance at all last year. Many are now finding out for the first time that they owe a tax penalty because the health care law's mandate says they have to buy health insurance and not just necessarily insurance that works for them and their family and their family's needs. Oh, no, the mandate states they have to buy insurance President Obama says works for them, even though they know it doesn't work for them. It may be too much insurance or insurance they don't need, don't want, can't afford, and they don't have the freedom or flexibility to even make that choice. President Obama says he knows what is best for them because they don't. The problem is that by the time many of these people figured that out, it was already too late to sign up for ObamaCare insurance for this year so now they are getting taxed--penalized. People who didn't understand the tax penalties feel as though the Obama administration has pulled a fast one on them. Again, as we approach the 5-year anniversary, ObamaCare continues to be unpopular with the American people. There is so much anger about the timing of the tax issues that the administration had to backtrack and allow extra time for people to sign up this year. The President made a YouTube video saying the deadline was February 15. February 15 came and went, and then the President said: Well, we better open it up again. This President is making it up as he goes along. We have seen it time and time again with this President and this law. He is making it up as he goes along. Is the Obama administration pleased with this confusion and anger that a lot of Americans are feeling because of the IRS penalties? It is not just Washington that is causing trouble for people who have to sign up for the President's health care. We are seeing bad news all across America. I talked about Maine earlier. Let's go over to the other coast. Let's go to Oregon. Oregon tried to set up its own health insurance exchange. They did such an awful job that not one single person was ever able to sign up on the State Web site--not one, no one. People had to fill out paper applications if they wanted to try to buy insurance last year. How much did it cost the State to set up this exchange where not one person was able to buy insurance from the Web site? It cost taxpayers $248 million. Last Friday the Governor of Oregon officially gave up. He signed a law dissolving the State exchange. Oregon will just use the Federal Government's exchange and the Federal Web site. Does the Obama administration think that the failed Web site and the wasting of $248 million in taxpayer money is a sign that the health care law is working? Is this administration pleased with the way Oregon's ObamaCare exchange wasted nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars? That is one State alone. Just next door in Washington State, they are having troubles of their own. There was an article in The Hill newspaper here in Washington, DC, on February 25 titled ``State's ObamaCare overcharges 13K.'' There were 13,000 people overcharged in the State's ObamaCare exchange in Washington State. According to the article, the Washington State ObamaCare exchange said it withdrew the incorrect amount of money from the bank accounts of 13,000 people. Think about that in reference to your own checking account, where there may be an automatic withdrawal based on a cable bill, cell phone bill or whatever. Many people--13,000 in this case in Washington State--had an incorrect withdrawal from the Washington State ObamaCare exchange. It says that some of the people say that more than three times the correct amount was withdrawn for their monthly premium for health insurance. Can you imagine if the electric company or one of the utilities--your cell phone provider or your cable company--withdrew three times the amount expected from your checking account for that monthly bill. For some people that glitch in the State system probably meant their accounts were going to end up overdrawn. Even if the States get the problem fixed right away, that is an alarming failure by that ObamaCare exchange. Is the Obama administration pleased with the anxiety the exchange is causing 13,000 people in Washington State? These are just a few of the ways ObamaCare is not living up to the promises that Democrats and the administration made to the American people. Later this month, on March 23, we will hit the fifth anniversary of President Obama signing this health care bill into law. If Monday's event with Secretary Burwell was any indication, the White House is going to throw a celebration. Once again they will say they are pleased and they will say ObamaCare is working. The Obama administration should not be pleased with its health care law. The Obama administration, and every Democrat who voted for it, should be embarrassed by it. It is not what Democrats promised, and it is not what people wanted. People wanted something very simple when it came to their health care and health care reform. People want the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a lower cost, and that is what Republicans in the Senate are planning to give them. We can do it without a 2,000-page law, and we can do it without all of the negative side effects of ObamaCare. That will be health care reform worth celebrating. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, earlier today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in an important case, a consequential case. It is called King v. Burwell. This case was brought on behalf of millions of Americans who have been harmed by the President's unlawful expansion of his unworkable and unaffordable health care law. Sometime before the end of June, the Court will decide if the law passed by Congress means what it says or if it means what the President wishes it said. It looks at one very specific and very important part of the President's health care law. The law says that Washington could help subsidize the premiums of people buying health insurance coverage through exchanges established by the States. President Obama decided that wasn't enough. He wanted to use taxpayer dollars on behalf of people buying insurance in the Federal exchange as well. That is it. That is the legal question. The law, written by Democrats in Congress--written behind closed doors--only authorized subsidies for one group, but the President paid them out for another group. The case is not about the Constitution, it is about the rule of law. I was at the Court this morning listening to the arguments, and I expect that the Justices will strike down the way the President expanded the law. Time after time this administration has claimed power it did not have and taken actions it cannot defend. The way the administration expanded the health care law is one of the most blatant of these power grabs, because when Democrats passed the law, they got exactly what they wanted. They rejected Republican idea after Republican idea that could have made this law better. They forced it through Congress with absolutely no Republican support. It still wasn't good enough for the Obama administration, so it expanded the law some more. ObamaCare is a minefield, and the administration refused to give people the information they need to help them navigate it. The Obama administration knew this court case was coming well before the enrollment period to buy insurance for this year even started. So did the American President tell the American people these subsidies might not be legal? Did he warn people? What did the President actually say? Did he warn anyone signing up in the exchanges that they might not be seeing the real price of any insurance they picked? No, the President refused to do so. He knew he might lose the case. He knew it. He knew the risk he was making people take, but the President didn't say a word--people who were just trying to make the best choices for their families. The White House did not tell people the truth about their options. Several Republican Senators wrote to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury asking them to warn people. We said people need this information. There are thousands of dollars at stake for families, and the Obama administration should at least tell them what might happen. The Secretary has refused to level with the American people. Just the other day, the Secretary of Health and Human Services admitted she had no plan B. Her letter is clear and it is consequential. She admits that if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration, the President does not have the authority--does not have the authority--to use administrative actions to undo the Supreme Court decision. The administration purposefully waited to admit that until after the open enrollment period ended. It didn't want to take the chance that warning people might hurt its enrollment numbers. Today at the Supreme Court, several Justices were skeptical of the administration's legal defense. I expect the Supreme Court to say the President must enforce the law Congress has passed, rather than the law the President wishes Congress had passed. If it does, it will help rein in this out-of-control White House. It will tell the Obama administration it must obey the law and that the President cannot keep making up the rules as he goes along. The health care law is clear. The President was wrong to expand his health insurance exchanges beyond what the law allowed. The President was wrong to use the IRS to make up rules and penalties. The Obama administration was irresponsible for not warning people. Republicans will have a plan to protect the people harmed by the President's action and to create a path away from ObamaCare. First, our plan will help the millions of people who have been hurt by the White House's decision to illegally implement its health care law. It would be unfair for families to lose their coverage in the middle of the year just because they believed the false promises made by Barack Obama. So Republicans will help Americans keep their coverage for a transitional period. Second, it will give States the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets, offering more options and different choices at home where people live, not decisions made in Washington. We want to allow States to come up with health care systems that work for them, not the bureaucrats in the Nation's Capital. We would give every State the ability to create a better market, better opportunities suited to the needs of that State's citizens. It is time for President Obama to stop putting people through all of the pain this law has created. The President's health care law continues to be unpopular, unworkable, and unaffordable. He needs to finally negotiate with Republicans to give people the reform they wanted all along, which is what people asked for--the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate our colleague from Alaska, who is the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That committee is in capable hands under her direction, whether the Arctic--all energy. She is committed to affordable energy, available energy, reliable energy, secure energy, and American energy. So we are in good stead with the new chairman who has taken over in January. As members of that committee, it is a great opportunity for us to work with her for affordable energy for all in America. We have opportunities for exports, and it is good to see her continued leadership on this and other topics. I appreciate her hard work.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, during the 2012 Presidential campaign, President Obama made a claim. His claim was: ``I have Israel's back.'' This week President Obama and his administration are turning their back on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and they are doing it right here during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington. While he won't have a meeting in the White House, he will have a very supportive audience right here on Capitol Hill. The Prime Minister will receive a warm welcome from Members of Congress who are concerned about Israel's security and the value of this very important relationship. In his speech to Congress tomorrow, the Prime Minister is going to address the ongoing negotiations with Iran over illicit nuclear programs. If President Obama's past negotiations with our adversaries are any guide, Israel is right to be apprehensive. The Obama administration started negotiating with Iran more than five years ago. A series of increasingly tough sanctions have damaged the Iranian economy and have finally convinced them to discuss their nuclear program seriously. In 2013 the President announced his 6-month interim agreement. The United States would suspend enforcement of some of the sanctions that had brought Iran to the table. In exchange the Iranians would freeze and reverse specific elements of their nuclear program. This was supposed to provide time for a final agreement to be negotiated within a year. That 6-month interim agreement has now extended to 17 months. President Obama mishandled these negotiations from the very beginning by conceding Iran's right to enrich uranium. In my opinion the President is compounding the problem as he chases the comprehensive agreement maybe to justify his Nobel Peace Prize. Information has leaked out occasionally about the negotiations. Each time there seems to be another point on which the United States has given in to the Iranian position. Iran has gotten about $10 billion in much needed hard currency since signing the interim agreement. It has gotten additional income from the suspension of other sanctions. We have no way to stop Iran from using this money to support terrorists around the world or to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria. What I heard, along with a number of Senators who went to Saudi Arabia a little over a month ago to meet with some of the Free Syrian Army, is that the freedom fighters from Syria who had come down to Saudi Arabia to meet with us said that this is exactly what Iran is doing with some of the money gained from the relief of sanctions. They are using it to prop up al-Assad and also to fund Hezbollah and Hamas. The Obama administration has said its goal is to keep Iran 1 year away from being able to construct a nuclear weapon. That is the same level the administration said Iran was at in 2013 when sanctions were still fully in force. Apparently, the Obama administration is aiming for a final deal that suspends sanctions on Iran and does not constrain its nuclear program any more than it was before the interim agreement. Let me be clear. If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue with its illicit nuclear program, the global community will be less safe, less stable, and less secure. Any treaty that we sign with Iran must be accountable, enforceable, and verifiable. So far, it doesn't appear to me that the Obama administration is negotiating a deal that would meet that standard. The administration has also undermined Israeli security in other areas as well, specifically, when it comes to Middle East peace negotiations with the Palestinians. U.S. law prohibits sending any money to international organizations that admit the Palestinians as a state. The idea was to support the peace talks by letting the two sides work out their differences without others putting their thumb on the scale. So it was a problem when the Palestinians sought and received recognition as a full member state in the United Nations group UNESCO. This happened in 2012. That is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The Palestinians triggered that law, and that stopped U.S. money from going to UNESCO. In every budget request since, President Obama has tried to restore the money in spite of the law. This would excuse the Palestinians and the United Nations from the consequences of their actions. It sends a signal that the United States does not, in fact, have Israel's back. Vice President Biden said: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'' By that standard, it is obvious that President Obama does not value supporting Israel in the international peace negotiations. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said just last week that Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit is too partisan and ``destructive of the fabric of the relationship'' Israel has with the United States. Members of Congress disagree. We welcome the Prime Minister. We are eager to show our support, and Republicans will continue to push for additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Iran. We intend to do all that we can to ensure that the vital alliance between the United States and Israel remains strong. I thank the Presiding Officer. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum calls this afternoon be equally divided.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past week while I was home in Wyoming traveling around our State, I had a chance to talk with students about their hopes for the future, and I talked with many small business owners about their efforts in trying to create jobs. The people of Wyoming work hard and take seriously the Western values of family and community. They are committed--they are committed--to preserving the West's role in providing natural resources that improve the lives of millions of people all across America. This commitment is shared by the Senate Western Caucus--a caucus which I chair in the Senate--as well as is shared by the Congressional Western Caucus under the leadership of Wyoming Congressman Cynthia Lummis. Recently, we released a joint report titled ``Principled Stewardship of the American West.'' This new report has details about specific things we should be doing right here in Congress, specific things Washington should let the people in the West do for themselves. The whole report is available on my Web site, Barrasso.senate.gov. Now I want to talk about four specific principles that guide the work of the Western Caucus that are contained in this very report. These principles are based on the idea that the people who live on the land are the best stewards of the land. Our main goal is to empower the residents, the workers, and the leaders in the West and local leaders throughout the country to make the decisions that best serve their families and their communities. These principles stand in stark contrast to the failed approach Washington has taken for far too long. The first principle in our report has to do with energy. The members of the Western Caucus are united. We will promote access to our Nation's abundant, affordable, secure, diverse, and reliable energy and mineral resources. That means increasing energy security for the United States. We can do that by producing more energy responsibly right here at home. It also means opening access to international markets so we can help the energy security of our allies as well. The second principle we talk about in the report ``Principled Stewardship of the American West'' focuses on environmental stewardship in the West. We take very seriously our commitment to ensuring the health of the land, the wildlife, and the environment. Thousands of people are working across the West to protect our communities. These are people who live in the West, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Nobody is better qualified than the people who actually walk the land and breathe the air they are trying to protect. Our report encourages locally led conservation partnerships to build on the work being done by people who rely on the health and the safety of the land. This means making sure regulators base their decisions on science, not on personal ideology, and that their work is done out in the open. On this front I will be introducing legislation to stop the Environmental Protection Agency's takeover of the waters of the United States. The third principle in this report focuses on agriculture and forestry. As an environmental stewardship, the Western Caucus believes the States are better equipped than Washington to develop good farm policies. Crops, breeds of livestock, soil types, and the growing seasons vary greatly across this country. These factors come together in the West very differently from what might be seen in the Northeast or in the South. A bureaucrat in Washington simply cannot write regulations that cover every part of the country with any hope of success. Western States must be allowed to make these decisions for themselves to help the farming and ranching way of life continue to thrive in America. One task we can do at the national level is to promote active management of our forests to ensure that our forests remain healthy. As many as 82 million acres of our National Forest System need treatment to deal with the threats of fire, insects, and invasive species. When forests deteriorate, they are more vulnerable to wildfire. Fires cause erosion and threaten water quality. When forests get overgrown and unhealthy, they stifle habitats critical for deer, elk, wild turkeys, and other animals. The members of the Western Caucus know how important it is to responsibly manage our national forests, and we will push for legislation to make sure that continues to happen. Finally, the report focuses on a Western approach to judicial and regulatory reform. This includes stopping the lawsuit abuse that special interest groups have used to set public policy without the public actually being involved. It includes protecting private property owners from excessive Washington regulations. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Forest Service have a history of interfering with the use of private property. These agencies have fined and bullied landowners throughout the West. Too often the goal of the bureaucrats is to protect their own turf, not to protect the land or to serve the people. Honest, hard- working taxpayers get crushed beneath the resources of a Federal legal system that operates without oversight. The Western Caucus favors conservation through local cooperation and partnership, not through intimidation and an attitude that ``Washington knows best.'' This report's four principles and the ideas it discusses are based on what members in the Western Caucus hear back home. These are the topics I hear from people as I travel around Wyoming. These principles promote responsible energy, food and timber production, while preserving what makes the West a unique place in America. Last year more than 10 million people from around the world visited Wyoming. They are drawn by its beauty and natural splendor. The people of Wyoming and all Western States know they have a responsibility to manage and protect the land and waters in a way that allows all of us to enjoy them. The goal of the Senate and Congressional Western Caucus is to preserve and protect everything that is special about the West so that families who have lived there for generations can continue to live there for generations in the future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, as I come to the floor today, the Senate is continuing to try to debate a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have made no progress on this bill for weeks, as Democrats continue to filibuster our efforts to actually even get on the bill, to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives. The way the Senate is supposed to work is that if Democrats don't like something about the bill, then they should offer amendments and change it. That is how the process has worked in the past. It is how the process is supposed to work today. It is the process as it worked about a month ago when we debated the Keystone XL Pipeline. We had more than 40 different amendments debated on the floor, voted on the floor. That is more than double the number of amendments the Senate Democrats allowed all last year in debate on the floor of the Senate. We could be debating those and voting on those amendments right now. My question is, why aren't we doing that? It is because Senate Democrats are filibustering to keep us from even considering this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to expire on Friday. Everyone in this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, should agree that funding the Department of Homeland Security is something we need to do. Why are Democrats being obstructive in the way that they are? Why are the Democrats so eager to cut off funding for the Department of Homeland Security? The answer is this is a disagreement not about funding Homeland Security, it is about our Nation's immigration policy and the President's Executive amnesty, an action which I believe is illegal. Congress is the appropriate place to make laws about America's immigration policy. It is not something the President gets to decide on his own. It shouldn't be controversial either. At least eight Senate Democrats have said they disagreed with the President's Executive actions or they have doubts about them. Senator Donnelly said back in November ``the President shouldn't make such significant policy changes on his own.'' On the same day Senator Heitkamp said the President's actions ``could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the Senate before it has even started.'' Even the President himself has on 22 separate occasions said he lacked the authority to rewrite immigration law--22 times. He said in March of 2011: There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply, through Executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. He did it anyway. He knew it wasn't appropriate, but that didn't stop him. Now a Federal judge has made it crystal clear the President does not have the authority to act on his own as he did. The President cannot make a new law just because he doesn't like the laws passed by Congress. This was a U.S. district court ruling in a lawsuit that 26 States brought against President Obama. Here is how USA TODAY described it in a front-page headline last Wednesday. They said, ``Obama Immigration Plan Blocked.'' Rollcall ran its own headline the same day that said, ``Immigration Ruling Casts Shadow on Obama's Legacy.'' What the court did was to stop the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the President's plan. The Federal court said, ``It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.'' Let me repeat that. ``It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.'' The judge added that the President's plan ``clearly represents a substantive change in immigration policy.'' This is not just a minor change. It is not the same thing that other Presidents have done before. The judge completely rejected the Obama administration's claim that it was simply exercising ``prosecutorial discretion.'' I know the President did not understand the last election. I am starting to think Democrats in this body do not understand why they lost. It is strange that Democrats want to continue trying to protect the President who does not have the strong support of the American people. It was a losing strategy in November and it will be a losing strategy now. Democrats in this body are continuing to prevent the Senate from doing anything, again, in an effort--they are doing it to protect President Obama. Now that a Federal judge has agreed the President exceeded his own authority, it is time for Democrats to stop defending the President and the White House. Senate Democrats have already voiced their concerns about what the President did and how he did it. It is time for those same Democrats to convince the rest of their Members that enough is enough. It is time for them to stop pretending this is about immigration, when it is now clear this is about the President's overreach. It is time for Democrats to end their filibuster and to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President. I wish to discuss legislation I introduced yesterday that would help Native American irrigators, ranchers, farmers, and families fully utilize the irrigation systems in Indian Country. The bill, S. 438, is entitled the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act, or the IRRIGATE Act. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as co-sponsors of this legislation, including Senators Tester, Hatch, Enzi, Daines and Bennet. Careful management of water in Indian communities is essential if we are to ensure a reliable supply in the future. Many ranchers and farmers, both Indian and non-Indian, still depend on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, to deliver water for their needs. The Department of the Interior initiated several Indian irrigation projects in the late 1800s and early 1900s intended as a central component of tribal economies. In most cases, the Federal Government did not even complete these projects. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office released a report on Indian irrigation projects, which highlighted the inefficiencies of the operation, maintenance, and management by the BIA. While the BIA has indicated that the current backlog is estimated to be in excess of $560 million, some Indian tribes estimate that this backlog estimate may be even higher. The most recent information from the BIA clearly reflects an upward trend in the costs of these systems, growing from $549 million to in excess of $560 million in only one- quarter year alone. Deferred maintenance means inefficient water delivery and damaged infrastructure. For the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, these issues are perpetual problems. Tribal economies depend on these water systems--and the BIA has an obligation to repair those irrigation systems. The bill intends to bring the BIA irrigation systems into the 21st century. The bill would authorize $35 million each year from FY 2015 to 2036, to address the deferred maintenance needs of certain BIA irrigation projects. This includes any structures, facilities, equipment, or vehicles used in connection with the projects. The bill would also require a longer-term study on the operations of these projects. This bipartisan bill is supported by many Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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, last Tuesday President Obama met with 10 people at the White House. These are people who had written him letters about the health care law. The White House said it designed this little publicity stunt to remind people to sign up for insurance on healthcare.gov by the deadline date of Sunday, February 15. At his meeting the other day the President said that the people there were ``a pretty good representative sample of people whose lives have been impacted,'' as he said, ``in powerful ways.'' I will tell you, if President Obama really wanted a representative sample, he would have included some of the people his law has affected in alarming and expensive ways. What does the President have to say to those people? Why didn't he invite any of them to the White House for his photo-op? Here is what the New York Times wrote on Sunday, February 8. This is the Sunday Review, New York Times. The headline is ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.'' Why isn't the President willing to talk to those people who are scrambling all across the country who may have insurance but are not covered? The story starts off by telling the story of one woman in New York City. Her name is Karen Pineman. She lost her existing health insurance policy because it didn't meet all the mandates President Obama said a health insurance policy had to include. It might have worked very well for her, but it didn't work well enough for President Obama, so she lost her coverage. The article says that ``she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace.'' After all, she had supported President Obama and she had supported the health care law, as they say, as a matter of principle. The article goes on: Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she'd have to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider network and no out-of-network coverage. So here she is--supported the law but then lost her insurance and had to buy other insurance with a narrower provider network and higher premiums. She accepted that she would have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician because her primary care physician didn't participate and wasn't part of that narrow network. She even accepted, the New York Times reports, having copays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke her ankle playing tennis. The article goes on: But her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a follow-up visit with an [orthopedic surgeon] in her network. She had to buy the insurance under President Obama's law because she lost her own insurance even though the President had promised her ``if you like your insurance, you can keep it.'' The article goes on: The nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, Conn. She is in New York City. She lives in New York. The closest doctor who was in her network was in Connecticut. She has had it. She said: It was ridiculous--didn't they notice it was in another state? What does President Obama have to say to this woman in New York? I see she wasn't included in the photo-op they had at the White House with the 10 people who wrote letters to the President. What does he think about the powerful negative ways his health care law is affecting her life? After all, the New York Times thought it was enough that they would devote the front page of the Sunday Review section this past week to ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.'' The article sums it up this way: The Affordable Care Act has ushered in an era of complex new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of- pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider networks. All of ObamaCare's mandates force insurance companies to use things like these deductibles and narrow networks to keep premiums from going up even faster. Remember, the President said premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. They have actually gone up, not down, and they have done all these things so they wouldn't go up even faster. The New York Times article says that under ObamaCare these insurance plans come with ``constant changes in policy guidelines, annual shifts in what's covered and what's not, monthly shifts in which doctors are in and out of network,'' and surprise bills for services people thought would be covered. Is the President proud of that? He stood up and said the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I don't see one Democrat on this floor of the Senate who is standing here to forcefully defend and be proud of this law. The article goes on to say that for many people it is all so confusing and so expensive ``that they just avoid seeing doctors.'' What does President Obama have to say to people who are so confused by their insurance now that the easiest path is to just not go for health care? According to a recent poll, 46 percent of Americans said that paying for basic medical care is a hardship for their family. Forty-six percent say it is a hardship for their family. Where was it a year ago? Well, it is actually up by 10 percent. The President said that things would get better, that people would like the health care law, and that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of it, but 10 percent more people this year than last year say that it is harder to pay for basic medical care, that it is a hardship for their family. What does he say to these people? What does the President of the United States say to these people who said his Affordable Care Act is making their life more of a hardship? This is an extensive article, ``Insured, but Not Covered,'' in the Sunday issue of this week's New York Times. There is another example from this article--Alexis Gersten, who lives in a town called East Quogue. She bought ObamaCare health insurance coverage for her family. Then she found out that they did have insurance, but they weren't covered. When her son needed an ear, nose, and throat doctor, the nearest one in her network was in Albany, NY, which is 5 hours away from where she lives. Even though her own cardiologist was on the network list, he said he didn't take her plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new cardiologist. Finally, there was a dispute over deductibles that left her with a pediatrician's bill for $457. Five hours to take her son to a specialist? Is that what the President means when he says the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of this law they voted for? Almost $500 out of pocket to see a pediatrician? Is that the kind of powerful effect President Obama wanted his health care law to have on families? That is what he said last week, ``a powerful effect on their lives.'' What does the President have to say to this woman, to Alexis? The only reason health care costs are not even higher for a lot of people is because the Obama administration decided to give subsidies to some people to help hide the true costs. Over the next few months, the Supreme Court is going to decide if President Obama is breaking his own law by giving out some of those subsidies. Millions of people in 37 States may suddenly find that they have to bear the expenses of ObamaCare entirely on their own, buying insurance that many of them don't want, don't need, and can't afford, covering lots of things they would never buy insurance for if given the personal choice, but the President says they must because he seems to know more about what they need for their families than they do. Last December several of us asked the administration to start warning people, people who buy insurance through the healthcare.gov Web site-- the disastrous Web site--to inform those people that they may lose their subsidies come this summer when the Supreme Court makes its ruling. We asked the administration--the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Treasury--to let us know how the administration plans to protect people who might get caught in the mess that President Obama and his administration and all the people who voted for it created. All we have heard in response is that the administration has no plans--no plans--to warn anyone or to do anything to help Americans harmed by the President's health care law. This has the potential to be yet another ObamaCare train wreck. Another study came out last month that looked at the change in health insurance coverage for the first 9 months of 2014. It found that there was a total change of about 8 million more people who actually have coverage. The problem is that most of those people were just added to Medicaid. Medicaid is a program that is already broken and doesn't work well. As a doctor who has taken care of patients in Wyoming for almost a quarter of a century, I can tell you that Medicaid across the country is a broken system. Yet the people who have gotten health insurance-- not care; the President is quick to use the word ``covered,'' but he doesn't use the word ``care'' because there is a huge difference. I can tell you that as a doctor. There were about 6 million people enrolled in the individual market, mostly through the exchanges, except 5 million people lost their insurance that they had gotten before through work. So when you take a look at the net effect on coverage, 89 percent of those newly covered got it through Medicaid. That works out to a net gain of a little under 1 million people who actually got private insurance, in spite of the exchanges and in spite of the subsidies. Seven and a half million got it through Medicaid. All of that expense and all of the hardship President Obama caused on American families-- families who have suffered as a result of the President's health care law--and most of the net gain in coverage is people who went onto Medicaid? The American people didn't ask for this. If President Obama actually talked with a real representative sample of Americans, he would know that. But he doesn't. He only hears what he wants to hear. He disregards the rest. He didn't do that last week. He still refuses to listen to people who have been hurt by his law. It is time for the President to be honest with the American people about the ways his law has harmed them. This is it--New York Times, Sunday, February 8, ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.'' It is time for the President to start working with Republicans to give people the kind of health care reform they wanted all along-- access to the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what the American people are demanding, and that is what they deserve, and that is what Republicans are going to give them when we get the opportunity to do so. It is time for President Obama to join us. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to join in the comments from my able and learned colleague from South Dakota to talk about what happened when the President yesterday released his budget for the next fiscal year. I agree with my colleague from South Dakota that the President's spending is absolutely astonishing. The President wants to spend $4 trillion in 2016. That is $1 billion 4,000 times. Nobody has ever seen a budget that big before. The New York Times ran an article right after the budget came out yesterday with the headline ``Liberal aspirations, set out as a budget.'' The article said: President Obama presented a budget on Monday that is more utopian vision than pragmatic blueprint. The American people don't want a utopian vision. They want responsible leadership--responsible leadership that understands their needs and the challenges people face every day. So far this year, all we have seen from the President is a list of ways he wants to spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. These ideas are so unrealistic, there has been no sign that the President actually wants to get anything done for the rest of his term. If the President wanted to get something done, what he would do is write a budget that spends a reasonable amount of money in a responsible way. If he wanted to get something done, he would offer responsible tax simplification. Instead, the President of the United States asked for more taxes on hard-working American families. That is what he did when he said last month that he wanted to raise taxes on college savings plans. Millions of people use those plans to give their children a better future. When even Democrats in Congress told the President it was a terrible idea, the President finally had to relent and drop his plan. Then came the State of the Union Address, and the President had more ideas for even additional new taxes. The Tax Policy Center analyzed those ideas, and they found that millions of middle-class families would pay even higher taxes under the President's plans. When they looked at families squarely in the middle of the middle class, they found that only about one in four of them would even get a tax break and, instead, twice as many families in the middle of the middle class--twice as many families--would see their taxes go up, and they would pay almost $300 more on average under President Obama's plan. How is that a good deal for hard-working taxpayers all across the country, for middle-class families? Another study looked at some of the President's other plans for tax increases. It found those ideas would lead to a smaller economy and smaller incomes. How is that a good idea for the middle class? Now we have the President's budget. Next year, he wants to increase spending by 7 percent over what Washington will spend this year. Did most Americans get a raise of 7 percent last year? Of course not. Under President Obama's economy, wages have been stagnant. Part-time workers are having their hours cut, their paychecks cut. Why? Because of the President's health care law. People are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays for health insurance that meets all of President Obama's mandates but doesn't necessarily meet the needs for them and their families. President Obama still has not learned that every dollar Washington takes out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers all across the country is a dollar they can't use for themselves, to spend, to save, to invest. In his budget the President sent over yesterday, he wants to add another $474 billion to Washington's debt next year alone--see what the debt is, and he wants to add it to the debt on top of that. He wants another $8.5 trillion over the next decade. Every one of those numbers is right there in his budget, and every one of them is bad news for hard-working American taxpayers. Americans aren't asking the President to add trillions of dollars to Washington's out-of-control spending and debt. They know they are the ones who are going to have to pay for this new spending. The President may not realize it, but the American taxpayer knows it. The White House says it can add all of this new spending because the budget deficit this year, as they say, will only be $468 billion. That is how out of touch this administration is. The President sees a deficit of $468 billion--and that is adding it on top of the debt--and is declaring victory. He wants to celebrate by piling on more debt to spend on his priorities, not on the priorities of hard-working American families. That is not a victory. Over the next 10 years, under President Obama's budget, the debt in Washington is going to climb to more than $26 trillion. That is $75,000 that each man, woman, and child in America would owe to pay off the debt President Obama is suggesting in his budget. We have all of that debt, and the President's budget does nothing to preserve and protect Social Security. There is nothing to preserve and protect Social Security so it will be there for the next generation. Is that really the legacy President Obama wants to leave for America's young people? At least the President will send his budget to Congress by the deadline this year. This is President Obama's seventh budget, and five of those he turned over after the legal deadline. Maybe the President should have taken a little more time to double check his math because the President's figures don't add up for the American people. President Obama's economic policies have led to far less growth than we would have had following the recession. According to the latest numbers released on Friday, our economy grew by just 2.4 percent last year. That is not really what it should be, not for our country. We have tried President Obama's ideas for the last 6 years, and they have failed. They have failed the American people. This budget is more of the same ideas--more middle-class taxes, more spending, more debt. And Democrats in Congress didn't even offer a budget the past few years. Republicans are ready to do the work of passing a responsible budget. We are going to pass a budget with commonsense spending that fits America's priorities, not Washington and President Obama's priorities. We will pass a budget that actually helps middle-class families thrive and our economy grow. We will pass a budget that takes control of Washington spending and starts to bring down President Obama's massive debt. Republicans in Congress understand that governing responsibly begins with budgeting responsibly. Instead of more new spending that middle-class, hard-working American families can't afford, we will balance the budget. We will cut waste and support programs that deliver real results. That is what the President should have done. What he should have done is shown real leadership, not just more utopian vision. The President missed his chance to lead. Republicans will produce a budget that focuses on jobs, economic growth, and opportunity for all Americans. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the Committee on Indian Affairs has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last November the American people sent an unmistakable message to Washington, DC. Voters across the country said they were tired of the gridlock and they were tired of the lack of action by the Democratic-led Senate. Well, we are now working again for the American people because voters said it was time for a new majority--the Republican majority--to get the Senate working again and to get America on a better course. Republicans heard the message. We heard it loud and clear, and we have been doing exactly what the American people have sent us here to do. Under Republican leadership the Senate is working again for the American people, and the best example of that is the bill we are considering now in the Senate on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The Obama administration has blocked and delayed this job-creating project for 6 years. Now Republicans are moving forward. We are moving it forward as well. We have had an open debate on the bill, and we have allowed amendments to the bill. Imagine that. We are actually debating legislation on the floor of the Senate, and Senators are actually offering amendments to that bill. We are all familiar with the milestone the Senate reached last week. Last year, under the Democratic leadership, there were a total of 15 up-or-down votes on amendments--15 for the entire year under Harry Reid. That is all the Democratic leader allowed. But by the end of the day last Thursday, we completed our 25th amendment vote. Just 22 days into the year, the Senate had already been more productive on amendments than it was on 365 days under Democratic leadership. We didn't stop there. Today the Senate will vote on up to 18 more amendments to the Keystone jobs bill and then another 12 after that. Several Democratic Senators complained the other day about what they said was a lack of amendment votes on this bill. Well, where were they last year when the Democratic leader allowed only 15 votes to get an up-or-down vote on an amendment for an entire year? Senator Schatz and Senator Markey, two Democrats, had never had a vote on one of their amendments in the Senate before Republicans gave them a vote last week. Senator Coons will get his first vote on an amendment today. All of these amendments aren't the only way again the Senate is working for the American people. Another is going to happen on Thursday. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going to hold a hearing on a bill that I introduced earlier this month. We have four Republican sponsors on that bill and four Democratic sponsors: Senators Heinrich, Bennet, Heitkamp, and Kaine. It is the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. Now Senator Toomey, a Republican, was added as cosponsor, and Senator Udall, a Democrat, was added as cosponsor. So there are five Republican and five Democratic cosponsors. This is an idea that the House considered last year, and it passed with bipartisan support. Forty-six Democrats voted in favor of increasing America's exports of liquefied natural gas. The House is expected to vote again and pass a bill like this one this week. This is an idea that has bipartisan support in the Senate as well. So it should be a no-brainer. Plans to send American energy overseas are wrapped up in Washington redtape, and Americans who are eager for the jobs on these projects continue to wait. This bipartisan bill will do a lot to fix that problem. It would set clear deadlines for Washington to make timely decisions on these import permits--export permits, important permits to export liquefied natural gas. Once there has been an agreement and an appropriate environmental review, the Secretary of Energy will have only 45 days to act on a permit application. Increasing American natural gas exports would do three important things. No. 1, it would create jobs. That is, of course, most important. These are American jobs, jobs for Americans. The private sector wants to create these jobs--not government jobs but private sector jobs. No. 2, it would help to reduce our Nation's trade deficit. The trade deficit currently stands at $39 billion. No. 3, these exports would support our American allies. Last year Russia invaded Ukraine and seized control of Crimea. Why? Largely because of the natural gas facilities there. There was a group of Senators who were actually in Ukraine. I was one of them the day the Russian helicopters landed just north of the gas plants there. This was about the gas. Well, we could help reduce the threat Russia poses to Europe by offering more options for our allies to buy American natural gas. There is no good reason for the endless delays on these export permits. Our bill would speed up the process. These export projects are job creators with bipartisan support. They have been stuck in Washington's bureaucrat gridlock. The Senate is going to be acting to get these projects moving. That is why the American people sent us to the Senate. It is how the Senate is supposed to work. Committees consider the ideas on both sides, the bills get debated in committee and on the floor, and every Senator has a chance to talk about it and then to offer amendments that might improve legislation. That is how it has always worked before. It is a slow process. It was meant to produce consensus. The majority leader, Harry Reid, changed all of that. The Democratic majority leader did everything he could to block amendments and to bypass and to skip committees. Did he do it to make better laws? No, not at all. Did he do it to speed up action so the Senate could be more productive? Of course not. It was a transparent campaign tactic to keep vulnerable Democratic Senators from having to take tough votes. Even Democrats couldn't get votes on their amendments. Well, that gimmick by Harry Reid--the campaign tricks--failed, and the American people were not fooled. That is one of the reasons voters across the country chose Republicans to lead both Houses of Congress. The American people said they deserve better, and the American people are absolutely right. The American people want Democrats to start working with Republicans to get things done. That is what Senator Heinrich and I--and others who are cosponsoring this measure today--are doing with our bill. The American people want an honest debate on important issues such as the Keystone jobs bill, as well. The American people want their representatives in the Senate to be able to offer amendments to bills such as this one. That is how the Senate should work. That is how the Senate is working under Republican leadership, and that is how it is going to continue to work. So I am pleased to see the votes are going to be held on these amendments. I am pleased to stand and cast my vote on behalf of the people of Wyoming. I look forward to more votes, more debate, and more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle. It is interesting that President Obama has threatened to veto eight separate pieces of legislation so far this year. It is interesting to the point that it has a headline in today's USA Today, page 2A: ``Obama veto threats are at record high.'' Veto threats are at a record high. The President has said he will veto another two bills that haven't even been introduced yet. If they haven't even been introduced, how does he know what they are going to say? How does he know what they are going to say once they go through the process of being amended, passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and get to his desk? The President should reconsider each and every one of these veto threats. The Senate is moving forward. The White House is putting up roadblocks. That is not what the American people were asking for in November. The American people want us to work together to get things done, to make their lives better. It is about them. It is not about the people who sit in this body, it is about the American people--their quality of life, people living paycheck to paycheck, day to day, what their lives are about. The Republican Congress and this Senate continue to listen to the American people. The President of the United States continues to ignore them. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would further advance the goals of Indian self-governance and self-determination. The legislation is entitled, the Department of the Interior Self-Governance Act of 2015. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Indian Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Senator Tester and Senator Murkowski. One of the cornerstones of Federal Indian policy is the concept of tribal self-determination and self-governance. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Act, Public Law No. 93-638 authorizes Indian tribes to carry out certain Federal Indian programs, activities, and functions within the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Health and Human Services. Self-governance is both a policy and procedure whereby, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Indian tribes administer Federal programs for Indians. Tribal administration of these programs promotes local control and decision-making for these important programs that affect the local tribal community. Tribal administration through these processes also serves to reduce Federal bureaucracy. This legislation promotes accountability by maintaining requirements that Indian tribes must demonstrate a higher level of responsible governance and administration. Good governance is vital for continuing this policy. The act gives authority to the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services to enter into 638 contracts and self-governance compacts with Indian tribes. Each 638 contact or self-governance compact identifies functions and activities to be carried out by the tribe, as well as any administrative, reporting, or other requirements that must be followed. Despite the increased flexibility in the tribal self-governance program, Indian tribes have stated to Congress that the Department of the Interior has, for many years, resisted the efforts by tribes to carry out Interior programs. Without additional reforms, the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act cannot reach its full potential. The bill intends to clarify and expand the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This legislation will give tribes a better opportunity to advance the policy of tribal self- governance by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to select up to 50 new Indian tribes to participate in the tribal self-governance program. In addition, the bill clarifies that provisions of water settlements and their authorizing legislation will not be affected by the self-governance amendments. Furthermore, nothing in this will expand or limit programs eligible for self-governance compacts beyond those already authorized under current law. This bipartisan bill is supported by Indian tribes across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would further advance the goals of Indian self-governance and self-determination. The legislation is entitled, the Department of the Interior Self-Governance Act of 2015. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Indian Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Senator Tester and Senator Murkowski. One of the cornerstones of Federal Indian policy is the concept of tribal self-determination and self-governance. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Act, Public Law No. 93-638 authorizes Indian tribes to carry out certain Federal Indian programs, activities, and functions within the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Health and Human Services. Self-governance is both a policy and procedure whereby, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Indian tribes administer Federal programs for Indians. Tribal administration of these programs promotes local control and decision-making for these important programs that affect the local tribal community. Tribal administration through these processes also serves to reduce Federal bureaucracy. This legislation promotes accountability by maintaining requirements that Indian tribes must demonstrate a higher level of responsible governance and administration. Good governance is vital for continuing this policy. The act gives authority to the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services to enter into 638 contracts and self-governance compacts with Indian tribes. Each 638 contact or self-governance compact identifies functions and activities to be carried out by the tribe, as well as any administrative, reporting, or other requirements that must be followed. Despite the increased flexibility in the tribal self-governance program, Indian tribes have stated to Congress that the Department of the Interior has, for many years, resisted the efforts by tribes to carry out Interior programs. Without additional reforms, the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act cannot reach its full potential. The bill intends to clarify and expand the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This legislation will give tribes a better opportunity to advance the policy of tribal self- governance by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to select up to 50 new Indian tribes to participate in the tribal self-governance program. In addition, the bill clarifies that provisions of water settlements and their authorizing legislation will not be affected by the self-governance amendments. Furthermore, nothing in this will expand or limit programs eligible for self-governance compacts beyond those already authorized under current law. This bipartisan bill is supported by Indian tribes across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.