John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2016, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``VHA Best Practices: Exploring the Diffusion of Excellence Initiative.''

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, I spent a lot of time traveling around my home State of Wyoming. I know the Presiding Officer spent a lot of time traveling around his home State of Oklahoma. I talked to a lot of people in Wyoming, as he did in Oklahoma, about one of the top concerns of the things that are on their minds. To me, and I know to the Presiding Officer, that has been the Obama health care law and the disastrous problems that people are facing. People now tell me that some of them are paying more for their health insurance than they are for their mortgage. That is not just a problem in Oklahoma or in Wyoming; it is a problem all across the country. And that is now. What they are also doing is reading stories in the papers, front-page stories that are saying the rates next year are going to go up again-- not just a little but a lot. I know that my Senate colleagues from all across the country--Republicans and Democrats--are hearing that because of the disastrous problems that the Obama health care law is currently experiencing. In Wyoming, the Obama health insurance exchange has only one company selling insurance--only one. Wyoming is not alone. This wasn't supposed to happen. The Democrats in Congress who supported this health care law said that they were going to create more competition--bring down prices by lots of competition. I can still remember when the President gave a speech to Congress in 2009, and what did he tell us? He said that in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market was controlled by five or fewer companies--five or fewer. Now in Wyoming we are down to one. The President said that without competition, the price of insurance goes up, and he said that the quality goes down. That is what President Obama said 7 years ago. He said that five options or fewer were such a threat to competition and to quality of care for American families that he needed to create his entire ObamaCare health care system. What is the situation today? One-third of America will have only one ObamaCare insurer in 2017. The color-coded map from the Kaiser Family Foundation came out just last week, and it shows all these areas in orange have only one ObamaCare insurer selling insurance in their locations. I note that Oklahoma and Wyoming are all in orange. Millions of Americans will have fewer choices in 2017 than they had in 2016, with one-third of the country having only one option for coverage next year. The Obama administration said that these were supposed to be competitive marketplaces. That is what President Obama said. When there is only one company selling a product in an area, that is not competition; that is a monopoly. The President ought to understand that, and so should every Democrat in this body. What do the national newspapers have to say about it? The Wall Street Journal, front page story, last week, August 29: ``Health-Plan Choices Shrink.'' It says that in 31 percent of U.S. counties, insurance exchanges appear likely to offer consumers only one option. It is a monopoly. That is the Wall Street Journal. You go through the article and it will tell you 2.3 million people currently on ObamaCare will have one option for when they shop next year. What are people expecting? They are expecting their insurance premiums to go up? When will they go up? November 1, a week before the election. When people start signing up for next year's insurance, they will see the incredible sticker shock and how that affects them. That is what competition looks like under President Obama. There is only one insurance company in all of those orange areas. I see the minority leader left to go back to his office--the same office, behind closed doors, where the health care law was written. He is from the State of Nevada. Let's look at the State of Nevada-- orange, orange, orange. All of those counties, other than this one area, have just one option because these very bright people--the architects of ObamaCare--wrote a health care law behind that closed door that says that one in three Americans will only have one ObamaCare insurer in 2017. It was what we predicted on the floor of the Senate as this bill was being debated. President Obama said: No, you are all wrong. It doesn't matter whether it was the minority leader, who was then the majority leader. They obviously lost the majority as a result of the poor judgment of the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi saying that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it, or others who said this is going to be wonderful. This is what the American people are facing now. All the areas in blue have only two options to choose from. It is astonishing what has happened. When you are down to one choice, you basically have no choice. Except for the people in Pinal County, AZ--this area in red-- they actually have no choices. No one wants to sell ObamaCare insurance to the people who live there--none. It is an ObamaCare ghost town. The others may be ObamaCare wastelands or no man's land, but this is an ObamaCare ghost town. What does President Obama say about that? It has gotten so bad in some places that State insurance commissioners have said that some of the ObamaCare exchanges are very near collapse. Does President Obama hear any of these things? Do the Senate Democrats hear any of these things? You would think they would if they go home and talk to people who live in their home States, but the insurance commissioner in Tennessee described the situation in her State as very near collapse. Now, if you look at Tennessee on the map, there are actually some places where they have more than one choice, but the companies that are selling insurance are saying: We cannot do it; we cannot continue because of the losses that have been incurred by trying to comply with all of the rules and regulations of the Obama health care law. The people in Tennessee who get ObamaCare insurance will be paying as much as 62 percent more starting in January. When they go to sign up on November 1, they will pay 62 percent more in January. Our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Lamar Alexander, recently said that for a 40-year-old person who is a nonsmoker, lives in his home State of Tennessee, and buys the cheapest possible ObamaCare silver plan, comparing this year's plan to next year's plan, that same person is going to have to pay $852 more than they did this year--not $852 but $852 more than they did this year. I talked to Senator Kirk, our colleague from Illinois, about that, and they will pay 45 percent more next year. Georgia will pay 33 percent more. These aren't just proposed increases. These are increases that have been approved by the insurance commissioner of those States. It is interesting that when the Democrats come to the floor, they say: Well, they are only proposed increases that will never happen. These are the increases that have been approved by the insurance commissioners of each of those States. Premiums are going through the roof. Americans are stuck with fewer options because the insurance companies just can't afford to sell on the exchanges due to the rules, regulations, and mandates of the exchanges. It is interesting to note that if you pick up a newspaper, you have to page all the way through to get to the stories. Here is the Washington Post, dated Sunday, August 28. The Presiding Officer can see it. It says: ``Health exchange sign-ups fall short.'' Well, if this is such a great deal, as the President says it is, why are the health exchange signups falling short? The American people know it is not a good deal. It is not a good deal for them personally. It goes on to say: ``Several firms opt-out citing losses.'' When you go through the whole article, it goes on to say that the ``Obama administration's promise''--promise of a menu of health care choices--``has been replaced by a grim forecast.'' Those are their words--``a grim forecast.'' This is the forecast right here on the map. This is what the country has gotten because of President Obama's plan and the demands by the Democrats that they take complete control of the health care in this country rather than leaving it in the hands of the men and women at home across the country who know what is best for them and their families. People living in one-third of the country won't have any choice next year. They will all have to deal with an ObamaCare health insurance monopoly and heading to ObamaCare no man's land. Companies are giving up because people don't want ObamaCare insurance. People can't afford it, and they are not buying it. They say that for them it is not a good deal. The Congressional Budget Office made some predictions. They predicted there would be about 24 million people signed up for ObamaCare by now. They made that prediction 1 year or so ago. The actual number is just 11 million. They overestimated by more than 2 to 1. From the very beginning, the health care law has failed to live up to the hype and to all the promises that Democrats and President Obama have made. Remember when President Obama said: Under this law, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. That is what the President told the American people. One of the factfinders called it the lie of the year. But President Obama said: If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. Here is USA Today of August 30, and the front page says: ``Health care choices choked further.'' More than 2 million people could be bumped from insurance plans in 2017. More than 2 million people currently on ObamaCare could be bumped from their plans, and the President looked the American people in the eye and said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is what the American people are facing today. So one in three only have one insurer to choose from. The situation is going to get worse. State insurance commissioners say things are very near collapse. What is the best thing the President can do and says about all of this? He says to the Democrats: Forcefully defend and be proud. Where are the proud defenders? Where are they today? Why aren't they here on the floor of the Senate defending this monstrosity that has hurt so many American people who had insurance? If you want to help people who didn't have insurance, you shouldn't have to hurt people who do have insurance. Yet I don't see the Democrats who are supposed to be proud and forcefully defending this law coming to the floor. I challenge them to come to the floor and debate me about this law and the impact it has had on the American people. What does Hillary Clinton say? She is running for President. She says: Defend and improve. Why aren't her supporters here on the Senate floor defending it? These ideas have failed. The promises have gone up in smoke. Do they have any solutions? Do they have any recommendations? The recommendations are more Washington control. That is what Zeke Emanuel said the other day on television. He is the architect who sat behind the closed doors over there and came up with this plan, along with the Senate minority leader and a number of the Senate Democrats. That is what he says--more Washington control, more taxpayer money, and bigger taxpayer funded subsidies. That is what they said. Hillary Clinton talks about expanding the failing Medicaid Program. They want to hurt our seniors by cramming more people onto the Medicare Program, which is already headed for insolvency. Americans know that our health care system is in trouble. ObamaCare has failed. It is in the insurance death spiral, and Democrats cannot fix it by making it larger. People in one-third of the counties in America won't have a choice for where they buy their health insurance starting November 1. America does have a choice when it comes to fixing our broken health care system. We can choose to get rid of ObamaCare and put solutions in place that we know actually will work for people--not for unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats but for people who we talked to in our home States over the August break. It means letting people get out from under the burden of all the Washington mandates. It is the mandates that are really the cause of these devastating price increases. We want to create real competition, not ObamaCare monopolies. We should let people choose the coverage and costs that are right for them and their families, not what Washington says is right for them. When we are from a rural State such as Wyoming or from the Presiding Officer's State of Oklahoma, we know about rural medicine, we know about rural health care, we know about big distances, and we know what people need. The people there know a lot better than what people in Washington think they know about smalltown and rural America. The Republicans in this body and Republicans all around the country are going to continue to fight. We will not stop fighting for the kinds of reform that get the power out of Washington and gives the power back to the States so people can have more control of the decisions that affect them, their lives, their communities, and their future. Democrats don't have any ideas other than higher subsidies, more government control, more one-size-fits-all for the failed policies of the past. These policies, I will tell the Presiding Officer, have failed. From the President's first speech, where he was condemning the fact that there were only four or five choices, to now, where you are looking at one, two, or zero choices, this points to the failure of the ObamaCare health care law. It is time, as we get back here--and I hope that Democrats listened to people at home and heard their complaints--for Democrats to work with us and give the American people the health care they want, need, and deserve. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi understands correctly, because at this point, the request, and what the Democrats voted for earlier this year--$1.1 billion, which is what the Centers for Disease Control says is the correct amount--the Democrats are now seeming to vote against it. They voted against it earlier this week.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I appreciate so much the comments by the Senator from Mississippi, who is absolutely right. There are two components of this. One is to kill the mosquitoes now. The other thing we need to move ahead with is coming up with a vaccine that can help prevent this virus from taking hold if someone happens to be bitten by a mosquito. So we need to do two things: We need the research and we need to kill the mosquitoes now. It was astonishing that one of the Democrats was opposed to the fact that what we wanted to do was make it easier to spray the mosquitoes because we have to spray near water. Well, that is where mosquitoes tend to multiply; it is where they breed; it is where the Zika virus is born. But they were so concerned that there would be a regulation that for a short period of time would be laid aside. We would still have to use only the things that have been properly approved for spraying near water. It seems as though the Democrats were willing to line up by the mosquitoes instead of the people being bitten by the mosquitoes. This is how ludicrous this has gotten. The money requested by the CDC--the right amount of money--- is here on the floor to be voted on today. We have to get the research going. We have to spray and kill the mosquitoes. But, once again, it seems the Democrats would rather have a political reason than a solution. I would recommend that the Democrats, coming out of their lunch meeting they are having now with their nominee for President, Hillary Clinton--they are not here in the floor defending themselves; they are out there visiting with Hillary Clinton. They need to come to the floor of the Senate and vote to approve this legislation today, to get the money to the Centers for Disease Control, to do the research, to kill the mosquitoes. Republicans are here offering solutions. Democrats are offering gridlock and the same old political games. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. I think we are talking about at least 7 weeks from now. If the Democrats don't change their tune, there is a lot of damage that is going to occur over that period of time. Now is the time to kill the mosquitoes because remember, as my colleague from Mississippi knows, it is the mosquitoes that carry the virus--the virus that, if a person is bitten and gets that virus, can cause all of these very consequential health impacts to babies who are yet to be born, as well as to adults.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the floor to talk about the threat that is posed to all of us by the Zika virus. Since then, more than 3,500 Americans have contracted this terrible virus. Unborn babies are being put at risk for a serious medical condition called microcephaly, which is a condition--I will tell you this as a doctor--where babies are born with smaller heads and brain development problems, and adults can be paralyzed and even killed by this virus. Here we are getting ready to vote in the next 15 minutes on an appropriations bill that is supposed to do something about this virus-- the Zika virus. How are the Democrats responding? They are peddling myths and playing politics. That is what they do. They already blocked this legislation once, and now they are ready to block it again. It is unbelievable. This legislation includes $1.1 billion to fight Zika. The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it would fund all of the agency's immediate needs in the fight against Zika at this point. When the Senate voted on this in May, every Democrat in the body voted to support the exact same amount of money. Two months ago, Democrats thought this was the right answer, but now they are willing to let the American people suffer because of this virus. What happened? What changed in the last 2 months that would have the Democrats who voted for it now vote against it? Nothing has changed except that the situation has actually gotten worse and more dangerous for people. I think the Democrats were never serious about wanting to do anything at all. Democrats decided they would rather have a political issue than have a real solution. Democrats aren't going to be able to dodge responsibility this time. We are running out of time to prevent an epidemic. Last week, Senator Bill Nelson from Florida said: We are at the 11th hour and 59th minute. That is exactly right. Why, then, is Senator Nelson and his Democratic colleagues playing a game of chicken with the American people? There was a poll that came out last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation which found that 76 percent of Americans support the Zika legislation that we have on the floor. Democrats ought to start listening to the American people. They should stop playing political games and take the money they asked for and that the Centers for Disease Control says is the right amount of money to fight the spread of this threat to the health of the American people. This is not the first time that Democrats in this body have put their own political talking points ahead of the American people in terms of their health care. At the beginning of this year, Republicans passed legislation to repeal the President's health care law. Why? So we can replace it with health care reforms that work for the American people. We want to act, and we acted to protect the American people from a health care law that has harmed so many people across the country and that so many people feel has absolutely punished them. President Obama vetoed the legislation, and Democrats in Congress resisted every attempt to undo years of damage caused by ObamaCare. Republicans offer solutions. Democrats just want to try to preserve the President's legacy, no matter what. Democrats are totally ignoring all of the chaos and all of the harm that is being caused by this health care law. Taxpayers paid to set up 23 different insurance co-ops across the country, and 16 of them have now folded. Only a third of the original co-ops are still operating. Billions of dollars in taxpayer money have been wasted, never to be paid back, and more than 850,000 Americans have lost their insurance that they got through the co-ops because the insurance co-ops can't afford to stay in business under the health care law. The co-op in Illinois collapsed just this week. That is the President's home State. Last week, it was co-ops in Oregon and Connecticut. Yet the Senator from Connecticut comes to the floor and says the health care law is working. It is not, even in his home State. There are more than 20,000 people in Oregon who have been left scrambling to find new coverage starting July 31--just a couple of weeks from now. It is not just people who belong to the co-ops who are losing their insurance. The largest insurance company in Minnesota says they are going to stop selling insurance in their State at the end of the year. BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota covers over 100,000 people. All of them are going to lose their insurance and have to find coverage elsewhere. President Obama said: If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. Not for the people in Oregon, not for the people in Illinois, not for the people in Connecticut, and not for the people in Minnesota. Americans who don't lose their insurance are going to have to get ready to pay a lot more for it next year, even if they can keep what they have. They sure don't like it. More companies have been saying how much they plan to charge next year, and the numbers are staggering. In Montana, BlueCross BlueShield just announced on Friday that it is raising ObamaCare rates 62 percent. Who can afford that? It is incredible. And the President has the nerve to call it the Affordable Care Act and to tell Members of the Senate that they should forcefully defend and be proud of it. There is very little to be proud of. It is happening all across the country because of this law. Premiums are skyrocketing. So are deductibles. So are copays. Every other cost that people pay out of pocket for their health care is going up--all of this since ObamaCare went into effect, and it is because of ObamaCare. I read a story the other day that said that before ObamaCare, for every doctor, there were six administrators out there trying to administer health care in the country in terms of doing the paperwork, pushing the paper around. Now it is nine for every one doctor. So we have gone from six to nine administrators for every doctor practicing medicine. People across the country are rejecting what President Obama is continuing to claim is working well. Just before the Fourth of July, we learned that 1.6 million people who signed up this year for ObamaCare have already quit by the end of March. They signed up at the beginning of the year and quit by the end of March--1.6 million. The Congressional Budget Office said that they were expecting by this time over 21 million people to have signed up for ObamaCare. Well, with more and more dropouts, we are at only half that number, and it is just more evidence that the President's health care law is cratering, it is collapsing. There is so much bad news out of this ObamaCare information that we continue to have that the White House feels they can't hide it any longer, so they dribble it out over the Fourth of July weekend--right before the Fourth of July, when people are paying attention to other things--because they don't want the world to know how badly this is actually working. Yet, what the President says is ``forcefully defend and be proud.'' The President is ignoring the fact that 1.6 million people who already listened to him this year and signed up have already gotten out of it because it is a bad deal. He totally ignores the 850,000 Americans who have lost their insurance because of his failed co-ops. Instead, he actually wrote an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association patting himself on the back, congratulating himself--it came out this Monday--on how great he thinks this health care law is. It is delusional for him to think that. It is ignoring the reality of what the American people see. He is living in a cocoon of self-delusion. That is what we are seeing across the country--the President ignoring the facts. In the article, the President actually says that the health care law should be expanded--expanded, he said--by offering government-run health insurance plans. If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress think America needs more government control, more control over people's health care, they are really out of touch with reality.

Mr. BARRASSO. At the amount requested by the Centers for Disease Control.

Mr. BARRASSO. Most certainly.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 3234, the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2016. For years, Indian communities have experienced serious socio-economic challenges. Unacceptably high rates of unemployment, remote locations, and a lack of infrastructure are just a few of the problems affecting either the quality of life for Indian people or the ability to build strong sustainable economies. The Federal programs available to facilitate or create economic opportunities are not structured to effectively target these communities. The Federal bureaucracy underlying various programs also inhibits economic growth as well. The Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, has conducted several hearings, listening sessions, and a roundtable on economic development. The primary concerns from Indian tribes, business owners, and tribal organizations have largely focused on access to capital. The Federal mechanisms for increasing available capital that have been used by Indian tribes or businesses to some degree include loan guarantees, tax credits, tax-exempt bond financing, community development financial institutions, CDFIs, and procurement programs. This bill is intended to address several of these mechanisms by amending four key Federal laws affecting Indian communities: Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000; Native American Programs Act; Indian Trader Act; and the Buy Indian Act. By amending these laws, the bill would benefit Indian communities by increasing access to capital for Indian tribes and businesses, increasing opportunities for Indian business promotion, and creating mechanisms and tools to attract business to Indian communities. This bill will amend the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 in four ways. First, it would require interagency coordination between the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, and Treasury to develop initiatives encouraging investment in Indian communities. It would elevate the Director for the Indian programs in the Department of Commerce. The bill would make permanent the waiver of the requirement for Native CDFIs to provide a matching cost share for assistance received by the Treasury CDFI. In addition, the bill would establish the Indian Economic Development Fund to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian loan guarantee and CDFI bond guarantee program for Indian communities. The bill would also amend the Native American Programs Act to reauthorize the economic development programs For economic development programs governed by this act, the bill would prioritize applications and technical assistance for building tribal court systems and code development for economic development, supporting CDFIs, and developing master plans for community and economic development. This legislation would also amend the Indian Trader Act. The bill maintains current law and actions taken thereunder, but simply adds authority for the Secretary of the Interior to waive the licensing requirement for traders under this statute where an Indian tribe has a tribal law governing trade or commerce in its Indian lands. The bill would amend the Buy Indian Act to facilitate the use of and more accountability for the Buy Indian Act in procurement decisions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Through this bill, more jobs at the local level would be created and small businesses are assisted. Indian tribes could engage in more cohesive community development and infrastructure building. In addition, Federal bureaucracy is diminished, thereby reducing the costs of economic development. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important and beneficial piece of legislation for Indian communities.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 3234, the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2016. For years, Indian communities have experienced serious socio-economic challenges. Unacceptably high rates of unemployment, remote locations, and a lack of infrastructure are just a few of the problems affecting either the quality of life for Indian people or the ability to build strong sustainable economies. The Federal programs available to facilitate or create economic opportunities are not structured to effectively target these communities. The Federal bureaucracy underlying various programs also inhibits economic growth as well. The Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, has conducted several hearings, listening sessions, and a roundtable on economic development. The primary concerns from Indian tribes, business owners, and tribal organizations have largely focused on access to capital. The Federal mechanisms for increasing available capital that have been used by Indian tribes or businesses to some degree include loan guarantees, tax credits, tax-exempt bond financing, community development financial institutions, CDFIs, and procurement programs. This bill is intended to address several of these mechanisms by amending four key Federal laws affecting Indian communities: Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000; Native American Programs Act; Indian Trader Act; and the Buy Indian Act. By amending these laws, the bill would benefit Indian communities by increasing access to capital for Indian tribes and businesses, increasing opportunities for Indian business promotion, and creating mechanisms and tools to attract business to Indian communities. This bill will amend the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 in four ways. First, it would require interagency coordination between the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, and Treasury to develop initiatives encouraging investment in Indian communities. It would elevate the Director for the Indian programs in the Department of Commerce. The bill would make permanent the waiver of the requirement for Native CDFIs to provide a matching cost share for assistance received by the Treasury CDFI. In addition, the bill would establish the Indian Economic Development Fund to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian loan guarantee and CDFI bond guarantee program for Indian communities. The bill would also amend the Native American Programs Act to reauthorize the economic development programs For economic development programs governed by this act, the bill would prioritize applications and technical assistance for building tribal court systems and code development for economic development, supporting CDFIs, and developing master plans for community and economic development. This legislation would also amend the Indian Trader Act. The bill maintains current law and actions taken thereunder, but simply adds authority for the Secretary of the Interior to waive the licensing requirement for traders under this statute where an Indian tribe has a tribal law governing trade or commerce in its Indian lands. The bill would amend the Buy Indian Act to facilitate the use of and more accountability for the Buy Indian Act in procurement decisions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Through this bill, more jobs at the local level would be created and small businesses are assisted. Indian tribes could engage in more cohesive community development and infrastructure building. In addition, Federal bureaucracy is diminished, thereby reducing the costs of economic development. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important and beneficial piece of legislation for Indian communities.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Sinclair Oil on its 100th anniversary of operations. Based in Wyoming, Sinclair Oil is one of the largest privately held, vertically integrated oil companies in America. Sinclair Oil and Refining Corporation was founded in 1916 by Harry Ford Sinclair. Under his leadership, Sinclair opened America's first modern service stations in the 1920s. These stations offered gasoline, oil changes, car repairs, and, for the first time, public restrooms. With the establishment of this network of full service gasoline stations, Americans were finally able to experience what drivers have for nearly a century referred to as ``the long road trip.'' In the 1930s, the world suffered through the Great Depression. Sinclair Oil continued to operate during those tough times, expanding its national operations by acquiring dying competitors, and, more importantly, protecting hundreds of jobs at a time when employment was scarce. By 1935, the company had 20,000 employees, 8,100 company-owned or leased service stations, and 14,000 miles of pipelines. It was also during this time that Sinclair introduced Dino the Dinosaur as the company's mascot and logo. Dino remains the face of Sinclair Oil and is one of America's best known oil industry mascots. Following the retirement of Mr. Sinclair in 1948, the company continued to operate under various ownership groups until 1976, when Earl Holding purchased the company's assets. Earl Holding, like Harry Ford Sinclair, was a self-made man. As was the case of many in his generation, Mr. Holding grew up with nothing during the Great Depression. He learned early on that hard work and dedication to one's goals was the path to success. Earl Holding's long business career began in 1952 when he and his wife, Carol, invested in a motel and service station called Little America. Located in a remote area along what is now I-80 in Wyoming, the Holdings took 2 years to turn their single operation to profitability. They fell in love with Wyoming and the people they met, and it is where they raised their three children, Anne, Kathleen, and Stephen. With their business successful, they began building the Little America chain of hotels and gas stations that exist throughout the West today. Just prior to the Holding's purchase of Sinclair Oil in 1976, Little America became Sinclair Oil's biggest customer. Today Sinclair Oil remains a vital player in providing American drivers with quality gasoline. Incorporated in Wyoming, the company owns refineries in Casper and Sinclair, WY. There are more than 1,300 Sinclair-branded stations located in 24 States. The company markets high-quality products, including DINOCARETM TOP TIERTM Gasoline through a network of 400 distributors. Sinclair also operates a network of pipelines and terminals in the Rocky Mountain and midcontinent regions, and the company continues to invest in its workers and operations to insure reliable and affordable products for generations to come. When Earl Holding passed away in 2013, Wyoming lost a remarkable individual. His love of family and community, and his commitment to hard work and pursuing one's dreams, led him to a life of tremendous success and fulfillment. We are fortunate that his legacy continues through the Holding family businesses, particularly Sinclair Oil. Headed by current CEO and chairman of the board, Ross Matthews, the Holding family remains intimately involved in the company's activities, and the values Earl and Carol Holding lived their working lives by are still reflected in Sinclair Oil's company vision: Love of Country, Care for People, Commitment to Safety. I invite all members of the Senate to join me in celebrating the 100- year anniversary of a truly American company, Sinclair Oil, and wishing the company, its employees, and the Holding family much success in the future.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is a privilege to recognize the Wyoming Air National Guard as it celebrates its 70th anniversary. The Wyoming Air National Guard boasts a legacy of service that spans decades--and generations. Since its formation, dedicated men and women from communities throughout Wyoming have provided essential support to our State, Nation, and world during times of trial. This rich history illustrates Wyoming's devotion and commitment to serving our Nation. The Wyoming Air National Guard was organized in Cheyenne on August 10, 1946, and designated the 187th Fighter Group. Three years after formation, the 187th was tested. During the Great Blizzard of 1949, the Guard took to the air to aid stranded ranchers, travelers, and residents in central and southeastern Wyoming. Operations Snowbound and Haylift included more than 200 flyovers to provide much-needed supplies, such as food and medicine, to those stranded below. In addition, members of the 187th provided over 550 tons of hay to livestock. The members of the Wyoming Air National Guard have provided mission support in nearly every national military campaign. During the Korean conflict, Wyoming pilots served around the world in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, flying over 1,500 combat missions. The Guard also served valiantly in the face of other major military conflicts. In 1953, under the threat of nuclear war, the 187th Fighter Group was redesignated as the 187th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. The squadron's members trained relentlessly and routinely executed 5-minute simulation drills to prepare for attacks from Russian bombers. During the Vietnam war, the Air Guard flew combat zone missions in Southeast Asia. In 1966, the group was designated as the 153rd Military Airlift Group and later as the 153rd Aeromedical Airlift Group. Throughout the grueling conflict, Wyoming airmen flew dangerous missions through rough terrain to move wounded and fallen soldiers from the battlefield. Remarkably, no Wyoming Air National Guard lives were lost during the war. During Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield in the early 1990s, the men and women of the 153rd supported the war effort by transporting troops and supplies within the U.S. and in Central and South America. The Guard's medical personnel were activated and sent to Saudi Arabia and were later sent to aid the Kurdish people in Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 drastically changed America. The Wyoming Air National Guard was the first unit to resume flying. In addition to transporting blood donations around the western United States, the 153rd Airlift Wing was deployed in support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In total, the Wyoming Air National Guard has deployed personnel abroad more than 3,700 times since 2001. Today the Wyoming Air National Guard continues to be known for its outstanding versatility and integrity. Members remain actively involved in a wide range of missions in Wyoming, the United States, and around the world. These operations include providing humanitarian aid, supplies, and transportation for servicemembers. Additionally, the 153rd Airlift Wing provides antiterrorism support worldwide. The heroes of the Wyoming Air National Guard proudly offer aid and support to our friends and neighbors at home. One crucial mission, especially in the Western United States, is firefighting. In 1976, two aircraft were outfitted with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, beginning a long history of exceptional firefighting deployments. MAFFS has become an essential tool in our Nation's efforts to battle forest fires. In 40 years, the Guard unit has helped extinguish fires from Washington to Arizona, including the historic 1988 Yellowstone National Park fire and the 2007 wildfires in California. The Wyoming Air National Guard continues to maintain the highest levels of integrity and reliability whenever and wherever they are called to serve. These dedicated men and women routinely pause their own lives to stand tall in the face of danger. Our State commends these heroes--and those who came before them--for all they have done to protect our most cherished ideals. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Wyoming Air National Guard's 70 years of courage, commitment, and dedication.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, each year, Senator Enzi and I have the pleasure of introducing outstanding individuals who have been selected as inductees to the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame for their invaluable contributions to agriculture and the Wyoming community. This year, Dennis Thaler, a third-generation Wyoming rancher, will be honored as one of these individuals during the 104th Wyoming State Fair. Selection as a member of the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame is not just about the quality of a calf crop or environmental improvements on the ranch, though both of these are important. This award also considers the involvement and dedication to the local communities that make Wyoming such a special place to live. I am happy to say that Dennis and his family embody the Western values that guide life in Wyoming. The Thalers raise crops like oats, millet, and wheat; run a cow-calf and yearling operation; and operate a backgrounding feedlot. Still, Dennis finds the time to be involved in the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The Thalers share their knowledge and experience with local students, fellow ranchers, and University of Wyoming researchers through the many field days, open houses, and workshops they host at their ranch. Dennis's dedication to his community is evident in the high praise he receives from his family, neighbors, and his many agency partners. Dennis has been described as a ``leader,'' a ``mainstay,'' and a ``driving force'' in his community. He has been recognized for both his innovative nature and his pursuit of an inclusive, well-rounded ``teamwork approach'' in making land management decisions. These characteristics make for both a hearty rancher and a healthy landscape. Dennis and his family were recognized for their hard work in 2006 when their ranch, the Thaler Land and Livestock Company, was selected to receive the Environmental Stewardship Award. The award considers management of water, air, soil, and wildlife resources, as well as the recipient's leadership qualities and the business's sustainability. Dennis and his family exceed expectations in each of these categories. For nearly five decades, Dennis has been at the helm of his family ranch in southeast Wyoming. He and his family have worked to improve the land and water resources to ensure a future for livestock, wildlife, and the next generation. Together with his family, I have no doubt that Dennis will lead the Thaler Land and Livestock Company into the next 100 years with the same mind for growth and conservation the ranch has experienced since 1916. I am honored to recognize this outstanding individual and his family. It is because of people like Dennis that agriculture continues to play such a significant role in Wyoming and across the United States. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in congratulating Dennis Thaler as one of the 2016 inductees into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, Senator Thune was just on the floor talking about Executive overreach. Well, let me tell my colleagues that 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a stinging rebuke and a stinging defeat to the Obama administration and to its immigration amnesty plan. There have been a string of stinging defeats for the President's approach of what I believe is an Executive overreach. The courts agree with me. For years, President Obama has been acting as though he believes he has unlimited power to do whatever he wants to do, regardless of what the law of the land says. Now the courts have finally said: Enough is enough. In this case, President Obama decided that for political purposes, he was going to stop enforcing some of the country's immigration laws. Twenty-six States said that was outrageous and they filed a lawsuit. It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the United States, and the law is very clear. The law is clear when it comes to immigration, and the President deciding to change it basically says he is willing to ignore the law, because he didn't come to Congress to get it changed, he decided to do it with regulation alone. The courts have said it is not the President's call, and they have now blocked the President's amnesty plan. During an event in 2013, the President actually seemed to understand that he was just one part of America's Government. He said: ``The problem is that I'm the President of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States.'' He went on to say: ``My job is to execute the laws that are passed.'' He understood at that time that it was his job--at least he understood it in 2013. So what happened between then and now? If the President says, as he did, ``I'm not the emperor,'' why is it that it seems that almost every action he takes seems to show that he wants to act as if he is the emperor? Time after time, he has shown that he considers himself above the law. We know he doesn't like to deal with Congress--not with Republicans or with Democrats; he likes to ignore Congress--and he doesn't like having to deal with the courts, so he tries to pack them full of people who will rule the way he tells them to rule. We saw that when Harry Reid changed the rules of the Senate. It seems the President doesn't like to listen to the voters, either, so he goes ahead and does what he wants to do no matter what the American people say they want. This case last month is not the first time a Federal court has said that President Obama acted above the law or even against the law. Last June, the Supreme Court struck down a regulation that was a big part of the Obama administration's War on Coal. The Supreme Court said that the Washington bureaucrats who wrote this rule never even considered the overwhelming costs--this is the Supreme Court saying this--never even considered the overwhelming costs that they were imposing on hard- working American families. The President never even considered that. The Court said: ``One would not say that it is even rational''--the President's actions weren't even rational--``never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and environmental benefits.'' The Supreme Court told President Obama that he is the President of the United States, not the emperor of the United States. Then look what happened last October. Another court, a U.S. appeals court, blocked the Obama administration's new regulation that vastly expanded the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' The Environmental Protection Agency wanted to give itself control over all the waters--all of them, including huge chunks of private property in this country, including farms and ranches--and do it by taking control of isolated ponds, prairie potholes, and irrigation ditches--all of these little areas the government can take control of, and they control the land. What did the appeals court do? The appeals court stepped in and stopped the administration's actions because of what it called ``the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule.'' This appeals court told President Obama that he is the President of the United States, he is not the emperor. That is the same thing the Supreme Court told President Obama back in February. The Supreme Court stopped another EPA rule over carbon dioxide emissions from existing powerplants--powerplants that have been there and are functioning. Just like the so-called waters of the United States rule, the Court said that the administration could not just go ahead and do whatever it wanted to do. The rule could do so much damage that the Court said they had to stop the President in his tracks. The Supreme Court said that it was skeptical anytime a Washington agency claims to suddenly find broad powers. And that is what has been happening now--the Washington agency is going back to old laws and finding new broad powers that have been in law and that have been on the books and functioning for a long time. The Supreme Court said they are very skeptical of an administration that does that. The Court said: ``We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.'' Well, Congress never did that with carbon dioxide. The Obama administration just made it up, and the Supreme Court told the President that he is the President of the United States, not the emperor. In May, the Supreme Court issued another decision to stop the Obama administration from taking away people's rights--the rights to use their own land. This had to do with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers taking control of private land. The Obama administration went so far overboard that they said people shouldn't even be allowed to challenge the Obama administration's decisions in court. I mean, can my colleagues imagine that? The Obama administration went so far overboard that they said people shouldn't be allowed to challenge the Obama administration's decisions in court. This President doesn't want Congress to have any say in what he does, and now he doesn't even want the courts to have a say in what he does. American families shouldn't have to fight Washington just to use their own property. They certainly shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Amazingly, this was a unanimous decision against the President by the Supreme Court. Even the most liberal Justices voted against the President on this issue, to show how much Executive overreach we are dealing with. The Supreme Court told the President once again that he is the President of the United States, not the emperor of the United States. It has been one case after another saying the exact same thing. I wish to give one final example of this string of stinging defeats for President Obama. Last month, the U.S. district court in Wyoming shut down President Obama's latest attempt to stop American energy production. It had to do with regulations on hydraulic fracturing on land controlled by Washington and by Indian tribes. The judge in this case said the administration had no authority whatsoever to issue the regulation in the first place. This was a judge appointed by President Obama. The judge wrote that ``Congress has not directed the [administration] to enact regulations governing hydraulic fracturing.'' The judge went on to say: ``Indeed, Congress has expressly removed federal agency authority to regulate the activity, making its intent clear.'' The judge said Congress made it clear. The President wanted to ignore it. The court told President Obama definitely and definitively that he is the President of the United States, not the emperor of the United States. There have been six different court decisions in the past year, and all of them have been against the President. Even the Justices that he handpicked for the Supreme Court are refusing to play along with all of his power grab and his illegal overreach. The American people are no longer buying the President's excuses and his promises. Back in January the White House Chief of Staff promised that the Obama administration--and I was astonished when I saw this on television, saw a video of it, saw it again, listened to it again. The White House Chief of Staff promised that the Obama administration is going to in this final year--this eighth year of his administration-- have a year of audacious Executive action. There is going to be audacious Executive action in the President's last year in office. It is time for the President and his staff to rethink their plan. They should recognize that they do not have the legal support or the popular support for all of the regulations and all of their illegal action. The President is not an emperor, although he may think that he is. It is time for him to recognize this fact. It is time for the President of the United States to do the job he was elected to do and to follow and to obey the law of the land. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Chassidy Menard for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Chassidy is a native of Lafayette, LA. She is a junior at Wyoming Catholic College, where she studies liberal arts. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Chassidy for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Colton McCabe for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Colton is a graduate of Howard Payne University, where he studied political science. He recently completed his first year of school at the University of Wyoming School of Law. 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 Colton for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Nick Dillinger for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Nick is a native of Gillette and a graduate of Campbell County High School. He recently graduated from UC Berkeley, where he studied the globalization of energy. He will be attending law school this fall. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Nick for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Josh Dillinger for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Josh is a native of Buffalo and a graduate of Buffalo High School. He currently attends the Colorado Mesa University, where he studies K-12 art education. 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 Josh for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Ashlee Patricelli 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. Ashlee lives in Casper, where she is currently studying business administration at 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 want to thank Ashlee for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.