John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Tanner Petersen for her hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tanner is a native of Ferron, UT. She is a sophomore at Western Wyoming Community College, where she is currently studying political science and communications. 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 Tanner 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 Ashley Saulcy for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ashley is a native of Casper and a graduate of Kelly Walsh High School. She recently graduated from the University of Wyoming, where she received a bachelor's degree in international relations. She will attend graduate school at Syracuse University this fall. 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 Ashley 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 Emily Spiegelberg for her hard work as an intern in the Republican policy committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Emily is a native of Sheridan and a graduate of Sheridan High School. She is currently a sophomore at the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in kinesiology. 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 Emily 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 Aaron Eger for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Aaron is a sophomore at Casper College, where he is studying international studies. 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 Aaron 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 Ashley Clark for her hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ashley is a native of Gillette, and a graduate of Campbell County High School. She is a senior at the University of Wyoming, where she is studying kinesiology and health promotion. 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 Ashley 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 Jenielle Stout for her hard work as an intern in the Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jenielle is a native of Casper and a graduate of Natrona County High School. She is currently a sophomore at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, where she is majoring in mechanical engineering. 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 Jenielle 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 Tiffany Mortimore for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tiffany is a native of Thermopolis and a graduate of Hot Springs County High School. She is currently studying business administration at Laramie County Community 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 Tiffany 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m., with the time in recess counting postcloture.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, flags across the country were lowered to half-staff to honor the 49 lives which were lost in the terrorist attack in Orlando. The American flag also flew at half-staff following terrorist attacks in Brussels in March, in San Bernardino last December, and in Paris last November. The flag is a symbol. It has great meaning and so do words. When we talk about the enemy, the words we use have meaning too, but now is not the time to talk. Now is the time to act. We must take action to stop the terrorists here and abroad. That is why last week Republicans were eager to get to work on appropriations bills that give the FBI more of the resources they need to stop the threats on American soil. The bill that would give law enforcement officials more tools to help prevent terrorist attacks was brought up and discussed on the floor, but what did the Democrats do? They came to the floor and staged a campaign-style publicity stunt. When Democrats were talking on the floor, Republicans attended a briefing by the FBI Director to listen--not to lecture, as Democrats were doing--but to listen and to get the facts about the specifics of what happened in Orlando. When Democrats held press conferences and sent out tweets, Republicans were pushing for the Defense Authorization Act that finally passed. This legislation actually does something by helping our military take on terrorist threats. It is directed at organizing the Pentagon to confront new threats. Democrats actually tried to block the legislation, and President Obama has threatened to veto it. President Obama went out and gave a speech last week in which he said ISIL is on the defense. We remember when he compared ISIL to the JV team. Well, now the President says they are on defense. He bragged about all the success he has had fighting terrorists. Then, his CIA Director, John Brennan, came to Capitol Hill. He came to speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee about what is happening with ISIS. He said, ``Our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.'' Does the President not believe his own CIA Director? The CIA Director said that ISIS is adapting to our efforts, ``and it continues to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue per month.'' He said that ISIL ``will intensify its global terror campaign.'' Why does the President of the United States--the Commander in Chief-- refuse to accept the words of the CIA Director--his own CIA Director? The CIA Director came to the Senate and said that ``ISIS is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks.'' Why does the President intentionally try to deceive the American people in terms of thinking about what the attacks are and what is happening? Why does the President want to say all is well? The CIA Director said that ISIL ``has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for further attacks.'' The President seems to suggest the problem is not coming from the terrorists but coming from the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Whom should we believe, the President of the United States or his CIA Director? Somebody asked the CIA Director at the hearing last week if ISIL would be weaker if they didn't have a safe haven in Syria and in Iraq. The CIA Director replied: That is a big, big part of it. We need to take away their safe haven. Terrorists use these safe havens to train, to raise money, and to plot more attacks. That should be the focus of President Obama and the Obama administration in response to Orlando. The administration and the President want to pretend it is succeeding in getting rid of the safe havens abroad. That is simply not true. The terrorist army of ISIL controls a significant amount of territory across the globe, and it is not just ISIL. There are also additional terrorist groups. The Director of National Intelligence testified to Congress earlier this year that Sunni violent extremists have more safe havens ``than at any other point in history.'' He added that Al Qaeda affiliates ``are positioned to make gains'' this year. According to the United Nations, the Taliban now controls more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001. Extremists groups like ISIL need the territory they control because it gives them safe havens and because the territory makes them more powerful. It helps them inspire more of their followers to launch attacks around the world. It makes it seem like the ideology of radical Islam is winning the battle of ideas. So it is imperative that we have a real strategy to defeat ISIL and other terrorist groups abroad. We need to make sure someone in the United States or France or anywhere else in the world with an Internet connection does not see this radical Islamic ideology as victorious. That is why we need to pass the appropriations act that is on the floor today. Nobody believes that using the term ``radical Islam'' will magically defeat the enemy, but words do matter. It is interesting. I note that in the New York Times op-ed page last Friday, an editorial written by David Brooks--he is a columnist. The President listens to him. He has him into the White House, and he is someone the President says he turns to. David Brooks' column last Friday starts like this: Barack Obama is clearly wrong when he refuses to use the word ``Islam'' in reference to Islamic terrorism. The people who commit these acts are inflamed by a version of an Islamic ideology. They claim an Islamic identity. But the President will not say it. Brooks goes on--and I think it is very informative seeing that it is David Brooks who is writing this: ``Obama is using language to engineer a reaction rather than to tell the truth, which is the definition of propaganda.'' The definition of propaganda. That is what we have. Well, if the President refuses to correctly name our enemy, he can't effectively fight the enemy because Democrats don't understand the enemy, and it seems they just want everyone to get along. The world does not work that way. So the Democrats tried to change the topic from terrorists to going after our Second Amendment rights. When they do this, they are not confronting the real threat, which is the ability of ISIL to inspire terrorists to act. If you want to stop the terrorist threat, you need to address the real problem. We must give law enforcement the support they need to stop the terrorists here at home. We must give our military the strength to deprive the terrorists of their safe havens abroad. The Defense Authorization Act and this Justice appropriations legislation are important steps toward doing that. Symbolic acts like lowering our flag matter, and so do words. Words matter. President Obama seems to want to take a victory lap for his efforts so far. Well, there will be no time for victory until ISIL is no more. Maybe President Obama really doesn't understand the truth about this threat from radical Islamic terrorists. Maybe he is just not being honest with the American people about it. Either way, Congress has been told the truth by the CIA Director. And it is up to us to do something about it. The CIA Director said it himself to the Senate last week. He said that ISIL ``would have to suffer even heavier losses of territory and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.'' Our response to the Orlando attack should be to step up the fight against ISIS where they live. We need a real strategy to defeat the radical Islamic terrorists and the resolve and the strength to carry it out. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, most mornings when the Senate is in session, the minority leader comes to the floor--Senator Reid--and talks for a while, and he sometimes talks about things in the news. So I come today to the floor to talk about a headline in the news today-- in the New York Times, of all places--with this headline: ``Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, and Not by a Little.'' ``Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, and Not By a Little'' is today's New York Times headline. It is interesting that when I hear Senator Reid come to the floor, so often he is coming to the floor to defend the Obama health care law. A couple of weeks ago he came to the floor and he said that ObamaCare is ``continuing to work.'' Those are his words. So today I find interesting the New York Times story with this headline: ``Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, and Not By a Little.'' It says: Even in urban areas where competition was expected to be brisk and the risk pool young and healthy-- ``Expected'' is the key word there-- insurers appear to be struggling. In 14 major cities, insurers are asking for 2017 increases twice as big as 2016. Twice as big as last year--yet Senator Reid says ObamaCare is continuing to work. The next day after he said that, he said that the Affordable Care Act is working. Well, I don't know anyone who could be a Member of the Senate and could actually be going home to their home States on the weekends and listening to people who live in their home States who could believe that ObamaCare is working. Across the country, people are seeing how much more money they are expected to pay for their health insurance premiums next year. I just read that story from today's New York Times. Yesterday's Washington Post said: Premiums for health plans sold through the federal insurance exchange-- the one that Democrats came to the floor and said they loved and was going to work-- could jump substantially next year-- That was from the Washington Post yesterday-- perhaps more than at any point since the Affordable Care Act marketplaces began in 2013. Does Senator Reid read the newspapers? Does he talk to his constituents? Otherwise, how can he be so terribly confused about the impact of this health care law and the damage it has done to the American people? So far, 31 States and the District of Columbia have released information on what insurance companies plan to charge next year. The average American is facing premiums that are 22 percent higher than this year. That is what is bringing about these headlines in the Washington Post and the New York Times. In Iowa, an insurance company says that it wants its customers in the ObamaCare exchange to pay as much as 43 percent more next year. One customer wrote in to the State insurance division and said: ``You're killing me.'' Does Senator Reid understand the impact of this law? Another wrote in and said: ``Who can afford this? It's disastrous.'' Does Senator Reid note any of that? In North Carolina, the largest insurance company in the State said it plans to charge people an average of 19 percent more next year. In Pennsylvania, one company says it is going to charge people up to 48 percent more starting in January. In Arizona, people are facing premium increases of 53 percent. That is the average increase in Arizona. So it is not surprising to see a headline in the New York Times today--and I hope Senator Reid read the paper: ``Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, and Not By a Little.'' Well, whose fault is this? Who should people across the country blame when they see these outrageous price increases that affect them at home? Well, I believe they should blame Senator Reid and every Democrat in Congress who voted for ObamaCare and all of the expensive requirements, regulations, and restrictions. So the question is, Is ObamaCare working? Let's use President Obama's standard, the one that he set for himself. Well, he promised that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Well, insurance plans have been trying to cut costs by doing what? By narrowing the network of doctors that patients can see. People are finding that they can't keep their doctors. They have been losing their doctor because the doctor is no longer covered by their insurance. Well, you say, this is from a guy who has practiced medicine for a long time. No, it is a whole weekend section in the Sunday Review of the New York Times: ``Sorry, We Don't Take Obamacare.'' People who have ObamaCare, people who actually supported the idea of ObamaCare cannot see a doctor, cannot go to a hospital because of this health care law. President Obama said if you liked your insurance, you could keep your insurance. Well, can you? Ninety-two thousand people in Colorado are losing their insurance plan because companies are pulling out of the State. Twenty-two thousand people in Ohio are now scrambling to find new health insurance because the co-op they were in went broke last month. The health care law actually created 23 different co-ops; 13 of them have gone out of business. Over the past couple of years, 745,000 Americans who were promised by Barack Obama that if they like their insurance they can keep it lost their insurance because their co-ops have closed down, just under the health care law. President Obama promised--it is his standard--that under his health care law, the average family would see their health care rates go down by $2,500 per year. Anyone who wants to know if ObamaCare is working should ask one simple question: Did your health insurance rates go down by $2,500? That is the standard the Democrats should be held to. Now we know that ObamaCare did take millions of people and put them into Medicaid, which is a failed system, a broken system. Many refer to it as a second-class citizen. It is hard to see a doctor, hard to get care. It took other people and gave them big taxpayer subsidies, paid for by the American taxpayers, to help them afford the high premiums-- the subsidies helped them afford the high premiums for this overpriced ObamaCare insurance, but those people will tell you that it left them with deductibles and copays so high that they can't actually use the insurance. For millions of other Americans, there are no subsidies-- just enormous bills. The President says: Don't worry, you are going to get a subsidy. But let's take a look at how many people will get subsidies and how many will get none who happen to be buying insurance through the exchanges. According to the Congressional Budget Office--the people who look into this--there are 12 million Americans who get some sort of subsidy to buy ObamaCare insurance. The premiums go up, the subsidies go up, but that is a bill that hits the taxpayers, the hard-working men and women in the country who pay their taxes year in and year out. So that is 12 million, but there are another 12 million--an equal number of people--who have to buy this insurance without any of the subsidies at all. So when the President takes a look and talks about these 12 million, that is a significant hit to the American taxpayers and it turns a blind eye to the 12 million Americans who buy insurance without any of the subsidies. They are left to pay the full freight for these enormous premium increases we are looking at next year. There was an Associated Press story on Monday. I read the story in today's paper, the story in yesterday's paper, the Associated Press headline on Monday--``Rising premiums rattle consumers paying their own way.'' Are Senator Reid and the Democrats rattled by it? They should be because the American public is rattled by it. This tells the story of a woman from Queens, NY. We have two Democratic Senators in this body who voted for this health care law. This is one of their constituents from Queens, NY. She got a notice from her insurance company that they plan to raise her rates by as much as 25 percent next year. On top of this, her plan dropped the hospital network she wants. Well, President Obama promised that she could keep her insurance, she could keep her doctor, and she could keep her hospital. It doesn't apply to this woman in Queens. She says: ``For people like me who are in the middle, there is very limited choice, and now that limited choice is going to get more expensive.'' How do the Senators from New York respond to that? Why aren't they on the floor talking about it? For most Americans, the Democrats' health care law has meant higher prices, worse health care, and less freedom to choose what is right for them and their families. That is why the polls show that, on average, only 4 out of 10 Americans have a favorable view of the health care law at all, and it is because the premiums keep going up and up without end and are hitting them in the pocket. It is because people are also paying higher deductibles and higher copayments just to see a doctor. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a survey, and they asked about these deductibles and copays. What they said was that for people who have deductibles over $1,500--even those people who are getting the subsidies for ObamaCare, which the President says is so great--70 percent of them with deductibles over $1,500 ranked ObamaCare as a poor value. This is a $1,500 deductible. The average silver plan in the ObamaCare exchanges has a deductible of more than $3,000. Insurance plans for next year are starting to come with deductibles of $7,000. How can the President say this is valuable? The people who are getting it--even with his expensive subsidies paid for by taxpayers--are saying this is giving them very little value and is a poor value. That is why this law is so unpopular. That is why ObamaCare continues to be underwater in terms of those who support it and those who oppose it. The average deductible for a silver plan this year is $600 higher than it was just 2 years ago. That is why, when we see these headlines in the New York Times today and the Washington Post yesterday, we realize that people all across the country are being hurt by this Obama health care law. One out of four Americans say they have been personally hurt by the health care law--not that they know somebody who has been hurt but that they have personally been hurt by the health care law. Even for people who are getting the subsidies for their premiums, the deductibles and the copays have been rising very fast. People never get to the point of being able to use their insurance. I mean, that is the real problem with the way this was set up. They have coverage; they still can't afford care. It is interesting to listen to the President's speech. If you listen to him carefully, he doesn't actually use the word ``care,'' he uses the word ``coverage.'' If you can't get care, coverage is useless, but that is what the President's numbers are. He talks about coverage, refusing to talk about care. This is about health care. People want care, not empty coverage. But in the face of all this evidence, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, has stood here on the floor of the Senate and pretended in front of the American people that ObamaCare is working. He has repeatedly ignored every broken promise that every Democratic Member in Congress made about the health care law. He has come to the floor and repeatedly ignored every American who has lost their insurance. He repeatedly comes to the floor and ignores every American who has had to pay outrageous amounts of money for insurance that for many of them is unusable but is mandated by President Obama and the Democrats that they have to buy under penalty of law. None of that seems to matter to the Democratic leader, who personally supervised the writing of the health care law in his office behind closed doors. It is a terribly flawed law, but behind the closed doors of his office, it was written and passed on a party-line vote. Well, the American people have spoken, and they have given Senator Reid's efforts and the ObamaCare health care law a failing grade. Even those with the subsidies say it is a poor value today. Americans all across the country are hurting because of ObamaCare, and Senator Reid and President Obama bear the responsibility. How much more do the American people have to suffer before the Washington Democrats will accept the facts? People want the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. Republicans have offered ways to give people what they have been asking for all along. It is time for Democrats to work with us. It is time for Democrats to stop trying to deliberately deceive the American people by pretending this broken health care law is working-- pretending. That is what this is all about because it is not working. ObamaCare remains very unpopular because people realize that for them personally, it is a very bad deal. Republicans have better ideas, better solutions. Republicans are offering the American people the freedom, the flexibility, and the choice they want when it comes to their health care. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, like many people in this body, I was home last week in Wyoming honoring the sacrifice of America's veterans. Every day we see evidence of just how much America relies on our men and women in uniform to keep us safe, to keep us free, to fight for our freedoms, to fight for our safety. Every day we get fresh reminders that the world continues to be a very dangerous place. So to me it is disturbing that the Democrats in Washington have done so much to slow down our efforts to provide for America's troops-- troops we need for our national defense. The National Defense Authorization Act that we are debating here sets important policies and priorities that have a great effect on our national security. A strong American military is absolutely essential--essential as we need to address the world's dangers that we face overseas before they become direct threats here at home. So when I consider legislation like this, I try to keep one thing in mind: If we want to make America safe and secure, then we need to provide the greatest possible security for our country while maintaining the greatest possible freedom for the American people and also at the same time improving America's standing in the world. So when I look back over the past 7 years, I have to ask the Obama administration--ask of the Obama administration and ask all Americans and anyone listening in today--how the Obama administration's foreign policies have met the goals of greatest possible security, greatest possible freedom, and improving our standing in the world. I just think that in far too many cases, in too many parts of the world, the only honest conclusion is that the policies of the Obama administration have actually failed. Now, I am not the only one that thinks so. I found it very interesting when you take a look at what former President Jimmy Carter has to say when he was asked about this. He said this about President Obama: ``I can't think of many nations in the world where we [the United States] have a better relationship now than we did when he [President Obama], took over.'' He went on to say that the United States' influence, prestige, and respect--think about this: influence, prestige and respect--in the world is probably lower now than it was 6 or 7 years ago. This is a former President of the United States, a Democratic President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. So let's look at some examples. It has been more than 5 years since the start of the uprisings in Syria. In August of 2011, President Obama responded by calling on Bashar Assad to step aside. A few months later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that it was only ``a matter of time before the Assad regime would fail.'' Well, that was more than 4 years ago. Assad is still there. ``A matter of time,'' she said. The Obama administration did not back up its words, and any meaningful support for the moderate opposition in Syria was not there. They did nothing. The President did nothing to enforce the so-called redline that he drew on Assad's use of chemical weapons against his people. Assad used the chemical weapons, and the President of the United States did nothing. The administration's weak response in Syria essentially gave a green light for Assad to continue and a green light for Russia to come in and pump up and protect Assad. So I find it interesting when you take a look at what the President of the United States has done. If you go to the Washington Post for Tuesday, June 7, this was the headline: Empty words, empty stomachs. Syrian children continue to face starvation as another Obama administration promise falls by the wayside. That is what we see with Barack Obama, another Obama administration promise falling by the wayside. Thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands killed. The President's redline became a green light. So the invitation came for Russia to come in. They have done that. Well, what else has Russia done over the past 7 years? Remember how the Obama administration launched its so-called Russian reset? President Obama was so intent on resetting the U.S. relations with the Kremlin that he showed a complete lack of resolve. He gave Russia one concession after another in the new START treaty. That was in 2010. He had only become President in 2009. In 2010, there was one concession after another. President Obama showed Vladimir Putin that the American President, Barack Obama, could easily be pushed around. Under this treaty, America is cutting our nuclear arsenal while Russia is expanding theirs. It was allowed by the treaty. This is the President's ``best he could do.'' Russia responded to the reset. We remember Hillary Clinton there pressing the reset button. Russia responded to the reset of relations by sending troops into Ukraine, by annexing Crimea. Russia moved. President Obama shows weakness, and Russia moves. Yes, Vladimir Putin is a thug. When President Obama shows weakness, Putin does the things that thugs do. But that is the Obama administration for you. The administration's policy on Russia has not provided the greatest possible security for America--not at all. But let's look at Iran. Last week President Obama gave a very political speech at the graduation ceremony at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. He criticized Republicans for questioning the treaties he negotiates. To me, it seems more like capitulates rather than negotiates. While President Obama negotiated a major treaty with Iran over their illicit nuclear weapons program, he said it was this or war. He thought the treaty was so great he didn't want the Senate to have a chance to review it. That was it, his way or no. In his State of the Union Address in January, he said that because of the nuclear deal with Iran, ``the world has avoided another war.'' These are President Obama's words. This is complete fiction, complete fiction. The choice was never between his deal and another war. It was a choice between a bad deal and a better deal, and President Obama chose a bad deal. As they say in the military, if you want it bad enough, you get it bad. And that is what we got, a lesson President Obama apparently never learned. We have learned from an interview with one of the President's top advisers that this was something the administration knew all along. This adviser, Ben Rhodes, bragged about creating an echo chamber to help deceive--intentionally designed to deceive the American people about the agreement. Let's go back. Before the nuclear deal, there was actually an international ban on Iran testing ballistic missile technology. A ban was in place. What is happening today? Well, Iran is right back to doing the tests. I remember the administration promising the inspectors would get access to Iran's nuclear facilities. They said anywhere, anytime, 24/7. That is what Ben Rhodes said. It turns out it is more like 24 days, not 24/7. That is the kind of notice that now is needed prior to access. So how is it working for Iran? Well, the Iranian economy is benefiting from access to $100 billion because the Obama administration gave them sanctions relief. What are they going to do with the money-- build roads, build hospitals, help educate the young? Don't count on it because even the President's National Security Advisor admits some of this money is going to be used by Iran to keep supporting terrorist groups. We see it. We know it--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. President Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran so badly that he got a very bad deal, a bad deal--not for him--for the American people, for our country. The President and his foreign policy team were willing to say anything to sell this deal to the American people. The administration's policy in Iran has not provided the greatest possible security for America. I could go on and on talking about more places around the world. Members of this body are fully aware. The American people are fully aware of the failures of this administration. There are so many places where America does not have a better relationship now than we did when President Obama came into office--just like Jimmy Carter said: ``I can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than when [President Obama] took over.'' So President Obama is going to spend the rest of his time in office trying to create an echo chamber. He will try to convince people around the world that his foreign policy has been a success, but The Economist magazine recently noted America, under President Obama, has been a foreign policy--in their words--``pushover.'' As the Senate considers this vital national security legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, I think it is important that we honestly evaluate what the President's record really is, and today the world is less safe, less secure, and less stable than it was 7 years ago. The President and all the people who have been a part of his foreign policy team over the years will say whatever it takes to try to hide and disguise the facts. It is time to block out the echo chamber. It is time to ignore the spin. We need to make sure we are providing the greatest possible security for America while maintaining the greatest possible freedom for the American people and improving America's standing in the world. That is our responsibility as a legislative body. For decades upon decades, America has been the most powerful and respected Nation on the face of the Earth. Under President Obama, American power has declined and respect around the world has evaporated. President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. It was completely undeserved, and it deserves to be removed from him if something like this could actually be done. Unfortunately, it is not possible to revoke a Nobel Peace Prize. In this case it should be. That prize remains undeserved. American men and women in uniform deserve better than what they have gotten from their Commander in Chief. It is now up to Congress to make sure they receive the support, the equipment, and the technology they need to protect our country and our citizens.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the Wyoming Dental Association as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. This historic milestone marks the success of the organization's efforts to assist its members in their mission of achieving the highest level of patient care for Wyoming. Life on the frontier posed many challenges for Wyoming's first dentists. Pioneer practitioners often traveled long distances through rugged terrain to treat their patients. Armed with rudimentary tools including forceps, pedal-powered drills, and whiskey to kill the pain, these circuit riders treated patients with little or no oversight. Seeing a need for standardization, the Wyoming Legislature created the Wyoming Board of Dental Examiners, which required all practicing dentists to register with the State. In 1916, several licensed dentists joined to form the Wyoming Dental Association, an organization dedicated to supporting the State's dentists. From that day forward, the association's members dedicated themselves to advancing the practice of dentistry. Thanks to extensive progress made in technology and medical care, modern oral health care has dramatically improved. Today there are over 500 licensed dentists in Wyoming. Our State's dentists are dedicated to their patients' health, not only providing dental care but also educating the public on the importance of oral hygiene. Every dentist has adopted a professional code of ethics and works to maintain the highest standards of excellence. The Wyoming Dental Association is a leader in promoting dental hygiene. Through its dedicated advocacy and leadership, the association collaborates with the Wyoming Legislature, local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations to help the people of Wyoming. Their achievements are impressive. In particular, dentists around the State volunteered hundreds of hours to complete Wyoming's Oral Health Initiative, which was designed to gauge the overall dental health of residents. The initiative provided stakeholders with valuable data that led to the development of strategies to improve education and access to care. Thanks to the Wyoming Dental Association's participation in this crucial study, the State is advancing dental health care to new levels of success. After 100 years, the Wyoming Dental Association is stronger than ever thanks to its incredible leadership. The dedicated efforts of the association's executive director, Diane Bouzis, and its current board of directors continue to improve the services its members receive. Thank you to President Mike Shane, President-elect Dana Leroy, Vice President Lance Griggs, Secretary-Treasurer Deb Shevick, and ADA Delegates Rod Hill and Brad Kincheloe. We also acknowledge the hard work of the State's district directors, including Lorraine Gallagher, Brian Cotant, Steve Harmon, Paul Dona, Aaron Taff, and Leslie Basse. These incredible individuals serve the association and their patients with great integrity. Thanks to the strength of the association's membership, we can always count on Wyoming's dental practitioners to come to Washington. They provide up-to-date information and input about the major concerns and issues facing the industry. Our entire State benefits from their advocacy. It is always great to meet with John Roussalis, Earl Kincheloe, Mike Keim, Bob Pattalochi, David Okano, Tyler Bergien, Brian Hokanson, and Carl Jeffries. These fine folks are excellent representatives of the profession. The Wyoming Dental Association is a remarkable organization committed to improving dental health care in all of Wyoming's communities. I am pleased to offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Wyoming Dental Association as they celebrate their centennial.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the Wyoming Dental Association as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. This historic milestone marks the success of the organization's efforts to assist its members in their mission of achieving the highest level of patient care for Wyoming. Life on the frontier posed many challenges for Wyoming's first dentists. Pioneer practitioners often traveled long distances through rugged terrain to treat their patients. Armed with rudimentary tools, including forceps, pedal-powered drills, and whiskey to kill the pain, these circuit riders treated patients with little or no oversight. Seeing a need for standardization, the Wyoming Legislature created the Wyoming Board of Dental Examiners, which required all practicing dentists to register with the State. In 1916, several licensed dentists joined to form the Wyoming Dental Association, an organization dedicated to supporting the State's dentists. From that day forward, the association's members dedicated themselves toward advancing the practice of dentistry. Thanks to extensive progress made in technology and medical care, modern oral health care has dramatically improved. Today there are over 500 licensed dentists in Wyoming. Our State's dentists are dedicated to their patients' health, not only providing dental care, but also educating the public on the importance of oral hygiene. Every dentist has adopted a professional code of ethics and works to maintain the highest standards of excellence. The Wyoming Dental Association is a leader in promoting dental hygiene. Through its dedicated advocacy and leadership, the association collaborates with the Wyoming Legislature, local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations to help the people of Wyoming. Their achievements are impressive. In particular, dentists around the State volunteered hundreds of hours to complete Wyoming's oral health initiative, which was designed to gauge the overall dental health of residents. The initiative provided stakeholders with valuable data which led to the development of strategies to improve education and access to care. Thanks to the Wyoming Dental Association's participation in this crucial study, the State is advancing dental health care to new levels of success. After 100 years, the Wyoming Dental Association is stronger than ever thanks to its incredible leadership. The dedicated efforts of the association's executive director, Diane Bouzis, and its current board of directors continue to improve the services its members receive. Thank you to President Mike Shane, President-elect Dana Leroy, Vice President Lance Griggs, Secretary-Treasurer Deb Shevick, and ADA delegates Rod Hill and Brad Kincheloe. We also acknowledge the hard work of the State's district directors, including Lorraine Gallagher, Brian Cotant, Steve Harmon, Paul Dona, Aaron Taff, and Leslie Basse. These incredible individuals serve the association and their patients with great integrity. The Wyoming Dental Association is a remarkable organization committed to improving dental health care in all of Wyoming's communities. I am pleased to offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Wyoming Dental Association as they celebrate their centennial.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk once again about the health care law. This past weekend I was home in Wyoming--as I am just about every weekend--visiting a community called Lovell, WY. At Lovell, we had a health and fitness fair that was focused on kids and adults in terms of prevention of problems and early detection of problems. They could get their blood tests done there. In talking to hundreds of people there at the hospital, what I heard again and again, as I do each weekend, is that this health care law is having a negative impact, a hurtful impact on the people of my home State of Wyoming. I want to spend a little time today talking about what is happening there. On Monday night, Senator Enzi and I had a chance to have a telephone townhall meeting. We talked to a lot of people around the State, and this continues to come up: the high increases in costs, in spite of what the President promised. He promised that insurance rates would go down by $2,500 per family if his health care law was passed and signed. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. Today I had lunch with a number of students from Lander, WY, in Freemont County, and again this came up as a topic of discussion. What we see is that the insurance companies at this time of year are turning in their rate requests--the requests they have to increase their rates for next year. I am going to talk about places all over the country now because it is not just Wyoming that is suffering under the President's health care law, it is all around the country. Families in Iowa now know that their insurance company wants to raise premiums by as much as 43 percent for some plans. Some families in New York have learned that their rates may be going up as much as 46 percent. Let's turn to New Hampshire. There are families in New Hampshire who have gotten the news that they could be paying 45 percent more. So when we look State by State by State, what we are seeing across the country is rates going up dramatically, impacting the ability of people to even afford their insurance. A health care group looked at nine States where information has been released. They found what they call a standard shopper for insurance. The average cost of a silver plan--the most commonly sold plan--will go up 16 percent next year. That is for a typical, say, 50-year-old person who doesn't smoke. It adds to an average cost of about $6,300 per year for that person trying to buy insurance. What we are seeing today is more and more people getting sticker shock under ObamaCare. The health care law has created so many problems for the American public--for taxpayers--because taxes have gone up as a result of this for providers of health care and certainly for patients. The health care law has caused mandates. It has put restrictions in place. It has been made so expensive that most people think it is not a good deal for them personally, which is why, in terms of the number of people who were uninsured when the law was passed, fewer than one in three of them have actually signed up for ObamaCare. That is because all these mandates and all these restrictions have made insurance much more expensive when it comes down to actually trying to get care. Let me point out that the President is very specific when he talks. He doesn't talk about people getting care; he talks about coverage. The headlines in the New York Times have been that there are a lot of people with coverage who can't get care. There was a story last week about so many people in New York City who feel that ObamaCare is a second-class program. They have that insurance card, but it doesn't help them get to see a doctor--certainly not one they want or need for the problems they are having. Some insurance companies have lost so much money by selling insurance on the ObamaCare exchange that they have decided to drop out of the exchanges entirely. They said: We are done with it. We can't afford to continue to sell it this way. We know the insurance company Humana is dropping out of several States. We know that UnitedHealthcare is leaving all but a handful of States. In Colorado, 20,000 people have received letters saying that they are losing their insurance plan next year because companies cannot afford to sell it. And it is only going to get worse. According to a recent survey by McKinsey & Company, it turns out that only one out of every four health insurance companies made a profit last year. Those are the ones I am talking about specifically selling insurance on the ObamaCare exchange. So one out of four made a profit; three out of four lost money. And we say: How is it that they were able to make a profit? Well, this is what they did: The ones that were able to make a profit tended to be companies that have a lot of experience offering Medicaid insurance. Basically, they took their Medicaid plans and sold them to people on the ObamaCare exchange. These are plans with very narrow networks of doctors, so you can't just go to any doctor you like, and they have very narrow numbers of hospitals, so you can't go to any hospital you like. For these specific companies, a lot of these plans are ones that have very high deductibles. So somebody may have an insurance card, but the deductible is so high--the dollar-for-dollar out-of-their-pocket expense--that they say they can't afford to see a doctor, and they have ObamaCare, which they are finding is essentially useless for them. There were different levels of insurance plans that ObamaCare came out with--bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. Most of the people have been choosing the silver plans because that was thought to be sort of the midrange plan. Well, now those silver plans are coming with very high costs. This means that people may be paying, again, for coverage, but they are not getting care. There is a company in Virginia. They have decided they are getting rid of the bronze plan entirely. They have said ``No, we are not going to sell the bronze plan anymore,'' and they are pushing all of their customers up into the silver plan. They are doing this, but if you are one of the people who had the bronze plan that they are not going to sell anymore, you can see your rates going up 70 percent from what you were paying this year--an increase of 70 percent. Some of these silver plans have gotten so inadequate that they are now what the bronze plans used to be. This is all as a result of what the Obama administration forced down the throats of the American public and every Democrat voted for and every Republican voted against. One insurance company is actually offering a silver plan next year that comes with a deductible of more than $7,000. Now, that is how much someone would need to pay out of their pocket before insurance actually kicked in. Blue Cross of Idaho is talking about a deductible of $6,850 for their silver plan. That is for the silver plan--the one that Democrats said was supposed to be the benchmark plan, the one that the subsidies are linked to. Let's think about what a $6,850 deductible means for most people. According to a new poll out by the Associated Press, two-thirds of Americans say they would have a hard time actually coming up with $1,000 for an emergency. So, then, how are they supposed to come up with over $6,800 in case of a situation that they may find confronting them? These kind of plans, where people pay a lot and don't get much in return, are what President Obama and the administration used to call ``junk insurance.'' I remember the President talking about that. ``Junk insurance'' is what he said. He said that the health care law would stop that; that would never happen under an Obama administration and an Obama plan. Instead, this President, under ObamaCare, is pushing more and more people into these kinds of plans, and this administration is even subsidizing them. So premiums are going through the roof. The deductibles are going up so high that people have insurance--which is mandated by law that they have--but it turns out that, for many of them, it is useless. People may have to find a new primary care doctor or a new pediatrician every year because they are getting switched from plan to plan to plan because they can't afford the plan that they have, and the rates continue to go up. And the President, who had once said ``If you like your plan, you can keep it,'' now says ``Oh, no, you had better shop around.'' He said that if you like what you have, you can keep it. He completely flipped and now says that you had better shop around. People continue to lose plans because insurance companies are going out of business or they just quit selling insurance entirely. To me, this is just one more sign that this health care law is a sinking ship. It is falling apart. And insurance companies have found that one reason they are losing so much money is that their customers are sicker than the President thought they would be and that the insurance companies thought they would be. The people who are healthy basically aren't interested in buying this very expensive insurance. They feel it is a waste of their money and would rather just pay the fine to the IRS. On Monday, the head of the State ObamaCare co-op in New Mexico was on the television network CNBC, talking about this problem. His name is Dr. Martin Hickey, and he is the CEO of New Mexico Health Connections. His company is asking to raise premiums for some of its plans by 34 percent next year. Still, he said, ``With these heavy rate increases''--and these are heavy rate increases--``the problem is the people who are going to say `for a $695 penalty, to heck with it.' '' So of the people the President is mandating to buy insurance, many are saying, ``to heck with it.'' That is what we hear from this CEO. Look, this is just what Republicans have been predicting ever since Democrats first brought this health care law to the floor and they passed this extraordinarily expensive law and mandates on the American public. Dr. Hickey, CEO of New Mexico Health Connections, said, ``The healthy are abandoning insurance, and what you're left with is the sick, and you can never raise your rates high enough.'' That is not what Democrats promised. That is not what they stood up here on the floor and talked about. They promised--and so did President Obama--that the health care rates would go down. They promised insurance coverage would get better. It has not. It has gotten much worse. They promised that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. In many cases, you can't. They promised that if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. In many cases, you cannot. People all across this country are getting a reminder of ObamaCare's broken promises as the health care requests for increases come out. Democrats want to double down on this failed health care law and add more mandates and more restrictions. They want more government control over people's health care. It does seem that everything the Democrats propose just makes prices go up faster. That isn't what the American people wanted, and it is certainly not what we need from health care reform in this country. This law was passed 6 years ago, and it is getting worse every day. Mr. 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 sing the praises of Fred and Connie Taylor, two incredibly talented and dedicated members of the Casper community. Fred serves as the choir director and his wife, Connie, serves as the organist and director of the handbell choir at the Shepherd of the Hills Presbyterian Church in my hometown of Casper, WY. Through music, Fred and Connie Taylor have helped our congregation share in God's love, grace, and teachings for 24 years. Last Sunday marked their last service in leading the musical ministry of the church as they start their well-earned retirement. Fred and Connie Taylor have been married for over 50 years. Since they first met at the University of Dayton, this lovely couple has been celebrating life and music together. In fact, music brought them together. The couple met when Fred was performing in the role of Elijah in Mendelssohn's ``Elijah'' and Connie was assigned to be his accompanist. Since that day, they have been performing together and sharing their musical talents in schools and churches across the nation. The Taylors fell in love with Wyoming during a trip to our great State in 1979. A short time later, Fred and Connie moved to Hanna, WY. Fred got a job as band director at the school and Connie took the position as the choir director. In 1986, they moved to Casper, WY. Fred became bass trombonist and assistant conductor of the symphony. Connie devoted herself to inspiring and spreading the love of music to children in the Casper schools. While they are a dynamic team, Fred and Connie also have significant individual accomplishments. Connie graduated from the University of Dayton with a bachelor of science in music and earned a master of music from Indiana University. Connie is a concerto level pianist. She has performed as an accompanist for the Joffrey Ballet. Her musical expertise has been critical in ensuring the success of numerous performances in our community. As a longtime elementary school teacher in Casper, she taught her students to appreciate the beauty and joy of music. Connie has helped ensure the love of music lives on in the future generations of our State. Fred's passion for music is best explained by his proclamation that, ``Music is part of my soul.'' He was born in New York City in 1938. As a baby, he would rock and sway along to the sounds of the world's most beloved symphonies. As a young boy, he started singing at his church and in the boys' choir. After serving our Nation in the U.S. Army, Fred earned his bachelor of science in music education from the University of Dayton and a master of music in conducting from Indiana University. Fred is the bass trombonist for the Wyoming Symphony Orchestra and founder of the Casper Brass and Storm Door Company. He has composed over 600 pieces of music. In addition, Fred has performed in and greatly contributed to the Casper College Band, the Casper Municipal Band, and the CC Jazz Band. Fred explains how his love for music and the state of Wyoming perfectly intertwine stating, ``I have a wonderful church choir to conduct; I have a symphony orchestra to play in; everything I write gets performed.'' He also said, ``Outside of that, the air is clear and the fish in the river don't have to cough, and my grandchildren live right around the corner.'' The passion for music is part of the family. The love of music and ability to bring the notes on the page to life extends to every member of their family; Lisa Rich, Steven Rich, Chris Taylor, Nancy Taylor, and their grandchildren Alex Rich, Jeremy Rich, and Abigail Madden. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in extending our appreciation for the musical talents of Fred and Connie Taylor which inspire and delight so many people in our community and across the Nation. We are also deeply grateful for their amazing ability to lift our hearts and share the Word of God through music. As quoted in the Bible, I say to each of them, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' All of us privileged enough to know them are blessed. We wish them the best as they embark on their next adventure.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak, as Senator Thune has just spoken, about the disastrous health care results for patients of ObamaCare. You have to go no further than this Sunday's New York Times, the Sunday Review front page. It looks like a red cross tilted on its side with the headline ``Sorry, We Don't Take ObamaCare.'' The minority leader, Harry Reid, comes to the floor and talks about how wonderful it is. The President says: ``Forcefully defend and be proud.'' Of what? Of ``Sorry, we don't take ObamaCare''? This is the New York Times, a newspaper whose editorial board has supported this health care law. They talk about the pains of the health care act frustrating patients. It says: Amy Moses and her circle of self-employed small-business owners were supporters of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act. They bought policies on the newly created New York State exchange. We have two Democratic Senators from New York. Where are they to respond to what has happened to the people of their home State as a result of this law? They bought insurance policies on the New York State exchange. What happened? Well, when they called doctors and hospitals in Manhattan to schedule an appointment, they were dismayed to be turned away--not once, it says, but again and again. It says ``We don't take ObamaCare'' is the umbrella term for the hundreds of plans offered through the President's signature health legislation. This is the New York Times, about New York. It is a big city, a place where there should be plenty of doctors, plenty of opportunity. Ms. Moses said: Anyone who is on these plans knows it's a two-tiered system. Is that what the President promised the American people--a two-tiered system? She is a successful entrepreneur in a two-tiered system. We are talking about a number of women in New York who are entrepreneurs and are very successful. Anytime one of us needs a doctor, we send out an alert. Is that what we are supposed to have? Anytime anybody needs a doctor, send out an alert? If you have a sore throat, send out an alert. That is what they need to do. The alert they send out among this whole group in New York says: ``Does anyone have anyone on an exchange plan that does mammography or colonoscopy [who takes our insurance]?'' She said, ``It's really a problem.'' I could go on. This is what the President of the United States and the Democrats in this body, who shoved this bill down the throats of the American people, have found that they have created--a plan one in four Americans says has hurt them personally. That is just one story in the news in one major newspaper, but it says a lot about the health care law in general. We just heard from Senator Thune. We know this health care law is a lot more expensive than the President ever promised. People all around the country remember the President saying that it will drive down health care premiums by $2,500 per family if it becomes law. Remember that? People all across the country remember it. It just hasn't happened. Costs have gone up, copays have gone up, and deductibles have gone up. People have lost their plans, lost their ability to see their doctor, can't go to the hospital they want, and can't get the care they need. Insurance companies are cutting back on which doctors people can see, and they are cutting back on what drugs people can take. This health care law has made health care worse across the United States of America. We know that some insurance companies are dropping States entirely in terms of a place to do business, so millions of Americans are going to lose their insurance plan again next year. Do you remember what the President said? ``If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.'' Well, not next year, not last year, not the year before that. Even the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies these issues, says that there are more than 650 counties in which families will have only one choice for insurance next year. I pulled up an article from the New York Times. That is not the only place there has been a similar article. This is Monday's paper, May 16, Wall Street Journal: ``Health insurers quit rural exchanges.'' They are abandoning rural areas all across the country--in my home State of Wyoming, but it is also happening everywhere. It is entire States-- Alaska, Alabama, Wyoming. There is only one choice where people can buy ObamaCare insurance next year. If you only have one choice, often you are put in a situation where you can take it or leave it. Not under Barack Obama. Oh, no. You must buy it. You have no choice, other than to pay an expensive penalty. That is what health care looks like now under Harry Reid and the Democrats and Barack Obama and the Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle who voted for this monstrosity. Take it or leave it. But you can't leave it because you must buy it. What happens when there is no competition? What happens when the health care law adds thousands of pages of expensive mandates and costs continue to go up? Premiums have gone through the roof. These are the requested premium hikes for ObamaCare plans for next year: We have seen 33 percent requested in Virginia; Oregon, 32 percent; Iowa, 43 percent; New Hampshire, 45 percent for some families. People are finding out that their insurance premiums are now higher than their mortgage payment. What do the Democrats say about all of this? Someone brought this up to Hillary Clinton at a campaign event in Virginia last week. A woman who owns a small business said: ``I have seen our health insurance for my own family go up $500 a month in just the last two years. We went from 400-something to 900-something [a month].'' What did Hillary Clinton have to say about this? What was her response? She said: ``What could possibly have raised your costs . . . that's what I don't understand.'' Is she serious? It is ObamaCare that raised her costs. Where has Hillary Clinton been the last 6 years that she doesn't understand it? This was in Virginia. This small business owner--the woman who went to the townhall meeting and asked Hillary Clinton a question--may see her rates go up another 33 percent next year. It is not just Hillary Clinton who is clueless. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, came to the floor last month and told the world that ObamaCare is ``working.'' Does Harry Reid not understand that millions of American are paying more for their health insurance and their health care than they did before ObamaCare? Many people are paying for insurance, but they can't get care, as we see from the New York Times story. Does Senator Reid not understand that people are paying more for coverage and getting less care in return? Does every Senator on the Democratic side of the aisle who voted for ObamaCare not understand how this outrageous law is hurting America and Americans and the people of this great country? There was a new poll that came out last month that found that only 44 percent of Americans approve of the health care law but 54 percent disapprove of the law. I remember Senator Schumer of New York saying: After we pass it, it will get more popular. Still, 54 percent disapprove. That is the highest disapproval number in the last 2 years. In this poll, almost one in three Americans said that the health care law has had a negative effect on their family--their personal family; not that they know somebody but in their own family. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to understand that. She said that she wants to expand ObamaCare. She wants more regulations, more restrictions, more of the terrible ideas that have driven up costs for American families. There was another piece of news last week that shows one more way the health care law is failing. It turns out that the Obama administration has been making illegal payments--payments found by a judge to be illegal--to big insurance companies to help prop up this health care law. That is what the Federal court ruled last Thursday. In 2014 the administration asked Congress to appropriate money to pay insurance companies above and beyond the subsidies they already get that the government pays for insurance premiums. It is called a cost- sharing subsidy. Congress--power of the purse--refused to appropriate the money. Do you know what the administration did? The administration panicked. It knew that without more Washington spending, people would pay even more out of pocket for their health care costs, and that would make ObamaCare even more unpopular than it is today. In the panic, because they knew that if that happened, people would realize how expensive the law really is and the disaster it is turning into, and people would see that all the President's promises about reducing costs were nothing but fairy tales, the panicked Obama administration went ahead and handed over the money anyway without the authority of Congress. The total was about $7 billion over the last 2 years. That is how much additional taxpayer money the administration has given away so far to hide the fact that the health care law is an expensive failure. The American people have had enough of this costly and collapsing health care law. They have had enough of losing their insurance, losing their doctors, losing access to the prescription drugs they need, and paying 20 or 30 percent more every year to get less coverage. The Democrats can come to the floor and pretend that ObamaCare is working. The Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, don't understand what is going on. The American people know exactly what is going on. They want us to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with health care that actually works, that has fewer restrictions, more freedom--freedom for people to get the coverage that works for them and their families, not what President Obama says they have to have because he believes he knows what they need better than they do. We need fewer mandates that drive up the cost for everyone and more options for patients to see the doctors they want and to get the medicine they need. That is what the American people want, and it is time for Democrats to show that they are listening to the people of America and that they understand, because up to this point, they have not been listening and they do not understand. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a column written by Ms. Karen Budd-Falen, a Wyoming attorney, entitled ``Major Regulatory Expansion of ESA Listing and Critical Habitat Designation.'' The article was published in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup on March 19, 2016. Through a variety of rules, regulations, and seemingly innocuous proposals, agencies under this administration have gone outside their congressionally given authorities and willfully ignored the intent of the very statutes that authorize Federal management of public lands and resources. In the article, Karen raises a series of concerns, concerns I share, about the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's calculated efforts to change key parts of the Endangered Species Act. Through a series of administrative revisions, the Service has substantially changed the way critical habitat is designated for species listed for protection under the act. Critical habitat, as Karen recognizes in her article, is ``. . . generally habitat upon which the species depends for survival. Importantly critical habitat can include both private and/or federal land and water.'' Karen outlines that, through piecemeal revisions, the Service has effectively removed all limitations of this definition. No longer will the Service be limited to enact Federal policy on a precise area where a species lives. Now a Federal agency may implement any number of restrictions on a ``significant portion'' of the range a species may or may not inhabit, for an undetermined period of time. The Service has made it clear that even ``potential habitat'' can be controlled, even if it is unclear whether the species will ever use that area. Karen also raises concerns about notification of private landowners, consideration of economic impacts, and the undeniable link between changes the Service has made and an increase in Federal permitting. The link between these changes and the intent of this administration is clear: any action taken on any land, no matter whether private or public, can now be considered under Federal jurisdiction if the Service so chooses. Not only is this arbitrary, but it is a clear case of Federal overreach. In Wyoming, we know that the most successful habitat conservation efforts are conducted by people on the ground who have a vested interest in the health of wildlife and the landscape they inhabit. These people are local business owners, local landowners, ranchers, and State experts. These people understand both the needs of the landscape and the scope of appropriate conservation efforts, things that Washington officials seemingly fail to grasp or willfully ignore. Unfortunately, the alarm that Karen has sounded is one of many currently deafening the American people. Karen has likened the Service's critical habitat reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial waters of the United States campaign. The comparison is apt. This administration has perpetuated a culture of Big Government by ignoring the biological, economic, and social realities of its irresponsible policies. Federal actions such as this dilute the effectiveness of successful conservation efforts and create limitless uncertainty for private landowners. I urge my colleagues to continue to stand with rural Americans who must not bear the brunt of irresponsible Federal overreach. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article written by Karen Budd-Falen.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the threat that the Zika virus poses--a threat to the health of Americans and to people around the world. Every day we learn more about this virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed a link between Zika and microcephaly. That is a condition where babies are born with smaller heads and with brain defects. It is a devastating problem that we are all facing. Studies have linked Zika to something called Guillain-Barre syndrome--a condition I studied in medical school and have seen patients with. It can lead to paralysis, which is another very serious condition. Last week the Centers for Disease Control also confirmed the first Zika-related death in Puerto Rico. Because this virus is mostly spread by mosquitoes, the potential risk is only going to become more urgent as the weather turns warmer. So we must do what we can now--today--before this turns into a true epidemic rather than the threat it is today. America's drug companies and researchers need to continue working on treatments, tests, and vaccines. Our cities and towns need to start taking aggressive measures to control mosquitoes. Doctors can help to educate people who are at risk of contracting the disease--this virus--but we really do need all hands on deck. Washington has an important part to play, and Republicans in the Senate are ready to address this issue. Congress has already passed legislation that adds Zika to what is called the priority review voucher program. This program awards financial incentives to the sponsor of a new drug that is approved to prevent or treat a tropical disease. That is a good way Congress can help speed up the research process in dealing with Zika. Congress has also approved the transfer of nearly $600 million in existing, unobligated funds for an immediate Zika response, so the money has already been moved to help. We can also make a big difference by cutting through redtape, and there is significant redtape in this city that actually makes it harder to kill mosquitoes that carry this virus. We would think we would want to make it easier to kill mosquitoes, but there is redtape in Washington, DC--bureaucrats making it harder to kill the mosquitoes that carry the virus. Today it is hard to believe that there are requirements for permits that I think are absolutely unnecessary and that make it more difficult and more expensive to spray for mosquitoes in the United States. So if a farmer or a rancher, a city or a community wants to spray for mosquitoes, they have to use a pesticide that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency; that is No. 1. In a lot of cases, people who want to spray for mosquitoes also have to get a separate permit under the Clean Water Act. That is No. 2. There are two steps-- one, to get the permit to spray, and two, to get the EPA approval of what they are going to spray with. This doesn't add any benefit to the environment, and it certainly doesn't help protect anybody from the Zika virus. It is Washington getting in the way. It adds another hoop for people to jump through before they can get rid of the mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus. Senator Mike Crapo from Idaho has written legislation that would eliminate this second unnecessary requirement. It is not saying that anyone can go out and spray whatever they want. The pesticide would still have to be approved so that we know they are safe. But the legislation says that we don't need this second permitting process that Washington demands. It is a commonsense change. It is the kind of thing we could do to help local officials on the ground make the best decisions about how they can fight these mosquitoes and this virus in their communities, in the places they know the best, and do it quickly. The Crapo bill has 18 cosponsors, and I am proud to be one of them. It is a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support, and it has already passed the Environment and Public Works Committee. We should take up this bill and pass it and get these tools into people's hands as quickly as possible. I know that some of what America can do to help fight Zika--and people understand this--is going to require us to spend money, and I support that. That is why the Appropriations Committee is looking at the need for additional funding, additional spending to address this threat. Regular appropriations bills are the best way for us to carefully look at where the priorities are for spending the taxpayers' dollars. That is how we should be paying for things around here, not just another continuing resolution or some emergency measure. When something new comes up, we can look at it, figure out how to balance the costs, and if we have to do an emergency bill to get some money out the door more quickly, we can take a look at that as well, but we can't do that without at least having a plan from the administration on where and how this money they are requesting is going to be spent. The Obama administration has not yet given us the level of information we need to make an informed decision. It appears that the administration is trying to take advantage of this Zika emergency to give itself an additional $2 billion to use however it wants--maybe to fight Zika but maybe to do other things. What the administration is saying is that they want the money to be used for ``assistance or research to prevent, treat, or otherwise respond to Zika virus . . . or other infectious diseases.'' The wording is much too vague. It would allow the administration to use these emergency funds on other priorities well beyond a Zika response. The President's request for emergency funding goes on to say that most of the money, they say, could be transferred to other parts of the government, like the Environmental Protection Agency and even the Department of Defense. It includes a lot of expenses that don't necessarily qualify as emergency spending outside the regular appropriations process. Both sides of the aisle know the Zika situation is serious, and both sides want to do what we can to help. But Congress also has an obligation to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, that there is accountability. We shouldn't be writing a big check for the Obama administration to cash without adequate explanation and adequate accountability. We deserve that. The American people deserve it. They will expect it, and they deserve it. I want to be clear. Zika is a very real public health threat, and it deserves serious discussion. It deserves urgent action. This fight against the Zika virus should not be turned into a political game. So I think it is a terrible sign that some Democrats in the Senate have begun to treat this devastating health issue like just another political talking point. That is what they have done here on the floor of the Senate. A couple of weeks ago, Democrats actually held a press conference calling on Congress to approve emergency funds for Zika. Then these same Democrats turned around and blocked passage of the Energy and Water appropriations bill for a number of days. The appropriations process is the best way for us to fund the Zika response, and the Senate Democrats are holding up this process for political purposes. We need to get moving beyond this appropriations bill to the next one that is going to address the issue of Zika. Then we hear that the minority leader might want to wait until next week to get on this bill. We need to get on this bill now. So the Democrats have made it clear that they don't even want to talk about offsetting any of the Zika funding. The Obama administration continues to stonewall our reasonable requests for adequate information about how it wants to spend these taxpayer dollars. Senate Republicans are going to keep asking for this information. We are going to keep pushing to use the appropriations process the way it is intended, and we are committed as Republicans to addressing the public health threat posed by the Zika virus. We will continue working across the aisle to respond to the threat and to do it in a way that is reasonable, responsible, and accountable. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2016. Senator McCain and I are introducing this important piece of legislation to enhance public safety efforts in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I want to thank Senator McCain for his leadership, as a former Chairman and a current Member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on this issue. He has been a staunch advocate for safe Indian communities, particularly for the children. This bill would build on the improvements made by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 passed by Congress to address the unconscionably high crime rates in these communities. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was intended to be a first step in the right direction in improving the effectiveness of criminal justice systems in Indian Country. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was based on five fundamental principles: to increase the Federal response and accountability; encourage greater cooperation between tribal, Federal, and State law enforcement; provide tribal justice officials with additional tools to combat crime; improve Federal programs to strengthen tribal justice systems; and improve data collection and information sharing relating to Indian Country crime. Since that time, numerous reports have been issued by the Departments of the Interior, Justice, and Health and Human Services as required by the act. The Committee has held oversight hearings on public safety issues in Indian communities, including a field hearing in my home state of Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Committee also held a roundtable with many stakeholders regarding the next steps needed for improving justice systems in these communities. The testimony and discussions were clear that the crime rates have diminished some but still remain unacceptably high on too many reservations. Likewise, barriers for Indian law enforcement agencies still exist to accessing criminal databases, sharing information, receiving required reports, training, and technical assistance. The Committee received testimony on the need for more resources to develop various part of tribal justice systems including jury trials and public defenders services. Most notably, the testimony indicated that alcohol and substance abuse were contributing factors in nearly all crimes in Indian communities. Several witnesses, including U.S. Attorney Christopher ``Kip'' Crofts from my home state of Wyoming, highlighted the need to address this problem to improve public safety. The most troubling aspect of the reports, the discussions, and the hearings is that the children face the most heartbreaking situations. In particular, American Indian and Alaska Native juveniles are overrepresented in Federal and State juvenile justice systems. In addition, there is a lack of training, collaborgion, communication, and cooperation among agencies regarding juvenile justice for these youth. The tribal youth in the Federal system may spend more time in secure confinement than youth in the state systems, sometimes by several years. Tribal youth in the Federal system may also be placed in facilities which can be located far away from their communities and families. On top of this, appropriate services for tribal youth in the Federal system may be unavailable as well. Tribal leaders have expressed concerns to me that they do not want to lose a generation of their people. It is incumbent upon Congress and the administration to do everything we can to help these young people turn their lives around. For these reasons, we introduced this bill to work toward safer communities and provide more accountability from the Federal agencies which have a trust responsibility to the Indian tribes and their members. The bill would address Federal accountability; increase data sharing and access to data bases; support alternatives in detention; reauthorize and build on resources for public safety efforts; and improve justice for Indian youth. It would also assist Indian tribes in addressing violent and drug crimes through Federal courts. This is the type of bill that we can all get behind and get signed into law this year. I urge Members to join me in the effort to improve the lives of Indian people through these stronger public safety measures.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2016. Senator McCain and I are introducing this important piece of legislation to enhance public safety efforts in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I want to thank Senator McCain for his leadership, as a former Chairman and a current Member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on this issue. He has been a staunch advocate for safe Indian communities, particularly for the children. This bill would build on the improvements made by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 passed by Congress to address the unconscionably high crime rates in these communities. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was intended to be a first step in the right direction in improving the effectiveness of criminal justice systems in Indian Country. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was based on five fundamental principles: to increase the Federal response and accountability; encourage greater cooperation between tribal, Federal, and State law enforcement; provide tribal justice officials with additional tools to combat crime; improve Federal programs to strengthen tribal justice systems; and improve data collection and information sharing relating to Indian Country crime. Since that time, numerous reports have been issued by the Departments of the Interior, Justice, and Health and Human Services as required by the act. The Committee has held oversight hearings on public safety issues in Indian communities, including a field hearing in my home state of Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Committee also held a roundtable with many stakeholders regarding the next steps needed for improving justice systems in these communities. The testimony and discussions were clear that the crime rates have diminished some but still remain unacceptably high on too many reservations. Likewise, barriers for Indian law enforcement agencies still exist to accessing criminal databases, sharing information, receiving required reports, training, and technical assistance. The Committee received testimony on the need for more resources to develop various part of tribal justice systems including jury trials and public defenders services. Most notably, the testimony indicated that alcohol and substance abuse were contributing factors in nearly all crimes in Indian communities. Several witnesses, including U.S. Attorney Christopher ``Kip'' Crofts from my home state of Wyoming, highlighted the need to address this problem to improve public safety. The most troubling aspect of the reports, the discussions, and the hearings is that the children face the most heartbreaking situations. In particular, American Indian and Alaska Native juveniles are overrepresented in Federal and State juvenile justice systems. In addition, there is a lack of training, collaborgion, communication, and cooperation among agencies regarding juvenile justice for these youth. The tribal youth in the Federal system may spend more time in secure confinement than youth in the state systems, sometimes by several years. Tribal youth in the Federal system may also be placed in facilities which can be located far away from their communities and families. On top of this, appropriate services for tribal youth in the Federal system may be unavailable as well. Tribal leaders have expressed concerns to me that they do not want to lose a generation of their people. It is incumbent upon Congress and the administration to do everything we can to help these young people turn their lives around. For these reasons, we introduced this bill to work toward safer communities and provide more accountability from the Federal agencies which have a trust responsibility to the Indian tribes and their members. The bill would address Federal accountability; increase data sharing and access to data bases; support alternatives in detention; reauthorize and build on resources for public safety efforts; and improve justice for Indian youth. It would also assist Indian tribes in addressing violent and drug crimes through Federal courts. This is the type of bill that we can all get behind and get signed into law this year. I urge Members to join me in the effort to improve the lives of Indian people through these stronger public safety measures.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today as a Senator and, as the Presiding Officer is, a doctor. I want to talk about a disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Earlier today Senator Rubio was on the floor talking about the disease, and I know earlier today Senator Wicker was on the floor talking about the disease. It is a topic that is, as an orthopedic surgeon, very personal to me. I was introduced to Duchenne more than 30 years ago and, as an orthopedic surgery resident, worked at a muscle disease clinic with young people with muscle disease. One of those muscle diseases is called Duchenne. It is a disease that affects young boys. I met patients and I met their families in the fight against this disease. The experience has left a lasting lifelong impression on me, and it is something I continue to work with today. I think the reasons we have gone into medicine are to help people and to make a contribution. One of the reasons I chose orthopedic surgery was that I really enjoyed seeing the relief--the care that I gave could help people, causing relief of their symptoms, relief of their pain, relief of problems they were living with from day to day. It is extremely rewarding to be able to work with a patient and tell that patient the surgery you performed was successful, and they are going to get better. They are going to get back to normal. As a doctor, I was able to see patients go on to graduate from college, get married, have children of their own. When I was overseas visiting our troops, I met a young man, a commander--a pretty big guy-- and he told me I had taken care of his broken leg. I looked at him and didn't really recognize him. I said: When was that? And he said: I was only 8 at the time. We take care of patients and, as we do, we see people through their lives, and it is encouraging to see them go on and strive and get stronger and bigger and more productive. But for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, that kind of treatment doesn't exist. It doesn't exist today with all the breakthroughs and research. When I saw patients in the muscle disease clinic who suffered from this condition, I knew the day that I saw them was going to be their best day from there going forward. Many of them had brothers. It is a disease that affects young men. It is a disease that may be coming in their family to children who had not yet been born. In some families there were several brothers in the line who had the disease. As one was diagnosed, then another younger brother was diagnosed a couple of years later with the same disease because this does tend to run in families. As a doctor, one wants to see somebody get better and stronger every day. Parents want to see their own child going from crawling to walking to running, getting stronger and bigger every day, but patients and families who live with this disease every day know too well the unrelenting force of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. What it does is cause degeneration of muscles and weakness. The vast majority of people with this disease are boys, and they are usually diagnosed between the ages of 3 and 5. Typically, parents start to notice their son isn't meeting all of the developmental milestones they might expect. He might be a late walker, or he may appear less coordinated than other children his age. Most parents aren't worried; they are just cautious. They may mention it to the pediatrician, and the doctor may run a test or two. Once the diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is made, patients pretty quickly and parents, specifically, very quickly find out that their son doesn't just have a developmental delay; they learn their son is typically going to lose the ability to walk by the time he is a teenager, graduate to a wheelchair, which then can make that young man prone to conditions like scoliosis, a curvature of the spine often requiring surgery to correct it. As the muscles continue to deteriorate--as they always do with Duchenne--that young man will lose lung function, which puts him at a higher risk of infection, pneumonia. Eventually, he will have to use a machine to breathe, to clear his lungs. The muscle deterioration doesn't just occur to the skeletal muscles--the muscles of the arms and legs--but also can occur to the heart, which is itself a muscle. When a young man with Duchenne muscular dystrophy catches a cold, it can be life threatening. Even when the patients get the best medical care--and so many of them do get the best medical care--they usually lose their fight against Duchenne muscular dystrophy by the time they are in their 20s. That is the devastating reality of this disease, and we cannot allow it to continue. Because of my experience with these patients, I have been working for years to actually help raise money for awareness for muscle disease and treatment for the disease. I served as a local host in Wyoming for the Muscular Dystrophy Association's annual Labor Day telethon. Every year, I was amazed at the dedication and the generosity of people around the country who would call in pledges to pledge centers at the 200 so-called ``love networks'' in Casper, WY. People would call in. We would always raise over $100,000. People were very committed to finding a cure for muscle disease and to sending young people with the disease to summer camp, where they found a level of freedom and friendship that they did not often find throughout the rest of the year. It was a great time for the young people with the disease. It gave their parents a rest as well. I think many of us in this body remember Jerry Lewis hosting the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon, as it was called, for more than 40 years. He would always end the telethon by signing a song. The song was ``You'll Never Walk Alone.'' So I come to the floor today to make sure that these patients and these families know that today they are not alone. Congress is listening. We heard from Senator Rubio earlier today and we heard from Senator Wicker. Those families and those patients know how critically important it is, and we know how critically important it is that we find a cure for this rare disease known as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. One of the key parts of this law gives the FDA more flexibility to approve treatments that have the potential to help people with rare diseases. It also allows the FDA to do followup studies to confirm the clinical benefits of the treatment. Well, we want to give people real hope. It is not good to give people false hope. We are interested in giving patients and giving families a fighting chance. I believe the FDA needs to use the tools that Congress has given them so patients can come across and get access to potentially lifesaving drugs. So a couple of weeks ago I signed a letter that was written by Senators Wicker and Klobuchar--a bipartisan letter. It called on the FDA to take full advantage of this accelerated approval authority. So we also asked the FDA to ensure that the prospective of patients is fully considered in this review process, when it comes down to the regulations. More than 20 Senators signed this letter because we know how important this issue is to patients as well as to their families. Last Friday the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled: ``The FDA vs. Austin Leclaire.'' This article talked about a young man named Austin Leclaire, 17, who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and so does his younger brother Max. As we talked, I mentioned that this runs in families. Sometimes, there is the diagnosis of a son in a family in which there is a younger son who has not yet been diagnosed but likely will have the disease. Well, back in 2011, Max was able to get an experimental drug to treat his disease. Now, Austin was not eligible to get the same drug. Remember, Austin is the older brother. So today Max is 14 and he is still able to walk. He can still play sports, and he can still dress himself. For most of us who have had healthy children, these are the things that people take for granted. So for a family where one of their sons has Duchenne, this kind of small victory can seem like a miracle. I can't even imagine how hard it must be when a mother has two or three children--two or three sons--with this disease, and especially when one of her children can get access to an experimental drug and the other cannot. The family looks at it. One son is being helped, and the other is not being helped. They can see the difference in their sons. So how would any of us here in the Senate react if we were in that same situation? How much heartbreak should one family have to bear? Those are the challenges for families who live with muscle disease every day. Well, the FDA, I believe, needs to work with patients like Austin and Max. We all know that this agency needs to make sure that treatments are safe and effective. That is not a question. We also know that people at the FDA are caring and careful professionals. The practice of medicine relies on hard science and on following data to understand and to treat illnesses. As a doctor, I know that the practice of medicine requires an equal measure of compassion. I think the FDA needs to take into account the unique needs of this patient population. We talk about double-blind studies, where you give one patient the real treatment and one patient something else, a sugar pill, something else that is not really the real treatment, the real medication. To really evaluate the impact of these medications, sometimes it involves doing muscle biopsies and putting people though painful tests. I think it is hard for a family living with a child with muscle disease to say: Well, we are going to participate in the experiment. We don't know. It is a 50-50 chance if our child is even going to get the real thing. But we still put them through all of these tests that can be painful, as they take muscle biopsies. I think it is unrealistic to ask a family to make that decision. I think we need to make sure that the FDA--and the FDA needs to make sure, in their compassion--doesn't lose sight of these kids. These young people really don't have a moment to lose in terms of potential treatments. I think the FDA needs to hear the calls of patients and to give these young people, living with a devastating disease, a chance to beat Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Evelyn Cantu 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. Evelyn is a native of Texas. She currently attends Casper College, where she is studying political science. 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 Evelyn 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.