Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate my colleague from South Dakota for his comments. I am hearing the same thing in Wyoming that he has been hearing about the ObamaCare health care law and the impact on people in his State. I am hearing the same thing. I heard it this past weekend in Wyoming talking to people about what impact ObamaCare has had on their lives.

It is very interesting because people all around the State of Wyoming are talking about the fact that their costs have gone up and choices have gone down. Many who had insurance that worked for them lost that insurance all related to a law passed in the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Obama.

Tonight, in Chicago, President Obama is going to give a farewell address. I am assuming he will talk about ObamaCare, and I am assuming he paints a very different picture than the American people have seen and are living with. The President is using scare tactics about what Republicans plan to do. No matter what President Obama wants, the American people have spoken. They have voted, and 8 out of 10 people say that what this costly and complicated health care law has done to them, they would like to see it either significantly changed or repealed and replaced. They know better than to believe what the Democrats are continuing to tell them because they have been living with it every day.

Seven years ago, Democrats made one false claim after another when they were trying to sell this law to the American people. Democrats said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. They said: If you liked your health care plan, you could keep your health care plan. That one was labeled the Lie of the Year a few years ago. They said premiums for the average family would go down by $2,500. None of it was true. Now Democrats are out telling more tales about ObamaCare. All of these new stories are going to be just as false as the ones they told us all in the past. For one thing, Democrats have been saying that millions of Americans are going to lose their health insurance if we repeal the ObamaCare health care law.

In a letter just last week, Senators Schumer and Sanders said that Republicans are planning to take health care coverage away from more than 30 million Americans. It is not going to happen. The Democrats absolutely know it is not going to happen. It doesn't stop them from saying it.

The fact is, this should never have been about health insurance in the first place. As a doctor, I will tell you this should have been about health care and patients. Republicans are going to make sure that is where the focus is from now on. The number of people with good health insurance coverage under ObamaCare actually has been a lot less than what the Democrats are claiming. That is because lots of people who bought ObamaCare coverage only did it because the health care law forced them to give up the insurance they already had and liked and worked for them. I have heard many stories from people in Wyoming who had insurance. It worked for them. They chose it because it was best for them and their family, and they lost it because the President said it wasn't good enough for him. These are people who were hurt by the broken promises and by President Obama's well-earned award of Lie of the Year.

With the health care law, most of the people who got insurance for the first time were actually forced into the broken system called Medicaid. Most of those people were actually eligible for Medicaid before the law was even signed, but for people who didn't have insurance before, a lot of them still can't afford care now because they may have insurance, but the deductibles are so high they can't afford to use it. Half of ObamaCare enrollees say they are skipping doctor visits in order to save money. If a family's health insurance doesn't cover the care they need, then the number of people covered is totally meaningless.

Democrats are out there saying that if we try to replace ObamaCare with a better solution, that it is just going to, in their words, cause chaos in the health insurance industry. Where have they been? There is chaos everywhere because of ObamaCare. When you look at what Democrats did to America's health care system, what you see is chaos. Premiums are up 25 percent in 1 year. That is chaos. Deductibles are up by an average of $450 in a year. That is chaos. There is no functioning marketplace for ObamaCare in one-third of the country. That is chaos. When Americans look at this, what they see is already chaos, and ObamaCare caused it.

I want to mention one of the false claims the Democrats are making, and it has to do with Medicaid. That is because Medicaid was broken long before ObamaCare. All the health care law did

was add more people onto this broken program. One reason Medicaid is struggling is the same reason the rest of ObamaCare isn't working-- because Medicaid tries to impose too many rules and regulations from Washington. It tries to make one size fit all.

There are different needs in every State. States know what those needs are, and they know much better than Washington about the people who live in those States. There are Republican Governors like Mike Pence of Indiana who understood this very important fact--and I am glad he is soon going to be Vice President. Governors like Mike Pence fought for waivers, waivers to make sure they could do what the people of their States needed. Every Governor should have that kind of freedom to look out for the best interests of the people in their home States. They shouldn't have to ask permission from some unaccountable, unelected Washington bureaucrat before making improvements to their own Medicaid Program. Giving States the freedom to come up with better solutions is just one of the things Republicans are going to do to replace ObamaCare with real health care reform. States need and deserve to have that freedom, and people should be free to buy the health insurance that meets their needs, not what meets the needs of the President of the United States.

People shouldn't have to pay more for coverage that isn't a good value for them. That is why so many people aren't even signing up in the first place and would rather pay the penalty--a penalty that, in my mind, is still unconstitutional. Families should have more flexibility to save for their own medical care. That is a way to make sure they are not stuck with empty coverage they can't afford to use. People shouldn't be mandated to buy this overpriced, unusable insurance or face a penalty from the IRS. It is one of the most outrageous parts of the entire health care law. To me, it is the first thing that has to go on the chopping block.

Republicans are going to repeal damaging and destructive ideas like ObamaCare's many taxes, mandates, and penalties. Then we are going to walk through better solutions one-by-one, step-by-step. I hope some of the Democrats in Congress will join us.

The Democratic Senators must be heading home on weekends and listening to people who have been impacted the way I described the people of Wyoming believe they have been impacted by the health care law. They have to realize there are things we must do better and more freedoms that must be given to the American people.

The American people have suffered long enough with the chaos created by ObamaCare. It took years for health insurance markets to get this bad, and it is going to take time to get things fixed.

This resolution we have submitted to repeal ObamaCare is the start.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor and remember my good friend John Smith.

On Saturday, December 31, 2016, we lost one of Wyoming's best leaders and diplomats on the Wind River Reservation. John Smith was a member of the Northern Arapaho tribe. For 27 years, he served as the director of the department of transportation for the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation. Mr. Smith played a major role passing transportation legislation that will save and improve lives on the Wind River Reservation and across tribal communities.

John was a wonderful friend and a wonderful man. I admired him greatly for his big heart, his warmth, and his larger than life personality. John cared deeply about the lives of people who lived and traveled through the Wind River Reservation. John's commitment to improving his community's roads can be seen today all over the Wind River Reservation. He was a hard worker, innovative and creative. He was always doing more with less. His jokes and sense of humor always made that hard work a little easier. Indian country did not have a better advocate or finer person to represent them in Washington, DC.

Since John's work ethic and personality were so big, he naturally lived up to his nickname ``Big John'' in every respect. As a former football and basketball player, you could see Big John coming from blocks away.

In 2014, John was in Washington, DC, to receive the White House Champions of Change award from the Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx. Big John was being recognized for bringing tribal, State, and local leaders together to complete construction of the notorious 17 Mile Road. When he received the award, Big John took off his cowboy hat and placed it on the head of Secretary Foxx. The unforgettable smile on Big John lit up the room with laughter. This special man left a lasting impression on all those who had the privilege of working with him.

Last April, John testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. He talked about dangerous roads that were costing lives in tribal communities. His testimony led to important legislation being passed to improve those roads. His efforts not only changed lives, it saved them, and we are all grateful. It has been an honor and privilege to work with Big John on highway bills. It has been a higher honor to be his friend.

John leaves big boots to fill, and I am confident the Wind River community will fill those boots and continue his hard work.

As we lift up our hearts and celebrate Big John's life, we also thank him for his selfless service on behalf of the people of Wyoming. Big John, thank you, and we will miss you.

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

Madam President, as I come to the floor today, the Senate is continuing to try to debate a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have made no progress on this bill for weeks, as Democrats continue to filibuster our efforts to actually even get on the bill, to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives.

The way the Senate is supposed to work is that if Democrats don't like something about the bill, then they should offer amendments and change it. That is how the process has worked in the past. It is how the process is supposed to work today.

It is the process as it worked about a month ago when we debated the Keystone XL Pipeline. We had more than 40 different amendments debated on the floor, voted on the floor. That is more than double the number of amendments the Senate Democrats allowed all last year in debate on the floor of the Senate.

We could be debating those and voting on those amendments right now. My question is, why aren't we doing that? It is because Senate Democrats are filibustering to keep us from even considering this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to expire on Friday. Everyone in this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, should agree that funding the Department of Homeland Security is something we need to do. Why are Democrats being obstructive in the way that they are? Why are the Democrats so eager to cut off funding for the Department of Homeland Security?

The answer is this is a disagreement not about funding Homeland Security, it is about our Nation's immigration policy and the President's Executive amnesty, an action which I believe is illegal. Congress is the appropriate place to make laws about America's immigration policy. It is not something the President gets to decide on his own. It shouldn't be controversial either. At least eight Senate Democrats have said they disagreed with the President's Executive actions or they have doubts about them.

Senator Donnelly said back in November ``the President shouldn't make such significant policy changes on his own.''

On the same day Senator Heitkamp said the President's actions ``could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the Senate before it has even started.''

Even the President himself has on 22 separate occasions said he lacked the authority to rewrite immigration law--22 times. He said in March of 2011:

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are

very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration

system, that for me to simply, through Executive order ignore

those congressional mandates would not conform with my

appropriate role as President.

He did it anyway. He knew it wasn't appropriate, but that didn't stop him. Now a Federal judge has made it crystal clear the President does not have the authority to act on his own as he did. The President cannot make a new law just because he doesn't like the laws passed by Congress. This was a U.S. district court ruling in a lawsuit that 26 States brought against President Obama.

Here is how USA TODAY described it in a front-page headline last Wednesday. They said, ``Obama Immigration Plan Blocked.''

Rollcall ran its own headline the same day that said, ``Immigration Ruling Casts Shadow on Obama's Legacy.'' What the court did was to stop the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the President's plan. The Federal court said, ``It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.'' Let me repeat that. ``It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.''

The judge added that the President's plan ``clearly represents a substantive change in immigration policy.'' This is not just a minor change. It is not the same thing that other Presidents have done before. The judge completely rejected the Obama administration's claim that it was simply exercising ``prosecutorial discretion.''

I know the President did not understand the last election. I am starting to think Democrats in this body do not understand why they lost. It is strange that Democrats want to continue trying to protect the President who does not have the strong support of the American people. It was a losing strategy in November and it will be a losing strategy now.

Democrats in this body are continuing to prevent the Senate from doing anything, again, in an effort--they are doing it to protect President Obama. Now that a Federal judge has agreed the President exceeded his own authority, it is time for Democrats to stop defending the President and the White House. Senate Democrats have already voiced their concerns about what the President did and how he did it. It is time for those same Democrats to convince the rest of their Members that enough is enough.

It is time for them to stop pretending this is about immigration, when it is now clear this is about the President's overreach. It is time for Democrats to end their filibuster and to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last Tuesday President Obama met with 10 people at the White House. These are people who had written him letters about the health care law. The White House said it designed this little publicity stunt to remind people to sign up for insurance on healthcare.gov by the deadline date of Sunday, February 15.

At his meeting the other day the President said that the people there were ``a pretty good representative sample of people whose lives have been impacted,'' as he said, ``in powerful ways.''

I will tell you, if President Obama really wanted a representative sample, he would have included some of the people his law has affected in alarming and expensive ways. What does the President have to say to those people? Why didn't he invite any of them to the White House for his photo-op?

Here is what the New York Times wrote on Sunday, February 8. This is the Sunday Review, New York Times. The headline is ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.'' Why isn't the President willing to talk to those people

who are scrambling all across the country who may have insurance but are not covered?

The story starts off by telling the story of one woman in New York City. Her name is Karen Pineman. She lost her existing health insurance policy because it didn't meet all the mandates President Obama said a health insurance policy had to include. It might have worked very well for her, but it didn't work well enough for President Obama, so she lost her coverage.

The article says that ``she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace.'' After all, she had supported President Obama and she had supported the health care law, as they say, as a matter of principle.

The article goes on:

Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she'd have

to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider

network and no out-of-network coverage.

So here she is--supported the law but then lost her insurance and had to buy other insurance with a narrower provider network and higher premiums. She accepted that she would have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician because her primary care physician didn't participate and wasn't part of that narrow network. She even accepted, the New York Times reports, having copays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke her ankle playing tennis.

The article goes on:

But her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange

a follow-up visit with an [orthopedic surgeon] in her

network.

She had to buy the insurance under President Obama's law because she lost her own insurance even though the President had promised her ``if you like your insurance, you can keep it.''

The article goes on:

The nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was

in Stamford, Conn.

She is in New York City. She lives in New York. The closest doctor who was in her network was in Connecticut. She has had it. She said:

It was ridiculous--didn't they notice it was in another

state?

What does President Obama have to say to this woman in New York? I see she wasn't included in the photo-op they had at the White House with the 10 people who wrote letters to the President. What does he think about the powerful negative ways his health care law is affecting her life? After all, the New York Times thought it was enough that they would devote the front page of the Sunday Review section this past week to ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.''

The article sums it up this way:

The Affordable Care Act has ushered in an era of complex

new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of-

pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider

networks.

All of ObamaCare's mandates force insurance companies to use things like these deductibles and narrow networks to keep premiums from going up even faster. Remember, the President said premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. They have actually gone up, not down, and they have done all these things so they wouldn't go up even faster.

The New York Times article says that under ObamaCare these insurance plans come with ``constant changes in policy guidelines, annual shifts in what's covered and what's not, monthly shifts in which doctors are in and out of network,'' and surprise bills for services people thought would be covered. Is the President proud of that? He stood up and said the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. I don't see one Democrat on this floor of the Senate who is standing here to forcefully defend and be proud of this law.

The article goes on to say that for many people it is all so confusing and so expensive ``that they just avoid seeing doctors.'' What does President Obama have to say to people who are so confused by their insurance now that the easiest path is to just not go for health care?

According to a recent poll, 46 percent of Americans said that paying for basic medical care is a hardship for their family. Forty-six percent say it is a hardship for their family. Where was it a year ago? Well, it is actually up by 10 percent.

The President said that things would get better, that people would like the health care law, and that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of it, but 10 percent more people this year than last year say that it is harder to pay for basic medical care, that it is a hardship for their family. What does he say to these people? What does the President of the United States say to these people who said his Affordable Care Act is making their life more of a hardship?

This is an extensive article, ``Insured, but Not Covered,'' in the Sunday issue of this week's New York Times.

There is another example from this article--Alexis Gersten, who lives in a town called East Quogue. She bought ObamaCare health insurance coverage for her family. Then she found out that they did have insurance, but they weren't covered. When her son needed an ear, nose, and throat doctor, the nearest one in her network was in Albany, NY, which is 5 hours away from where she lives. Even though her own cardiologist was on the network list, he said he didn't take her plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new cardiologist. Finally, there was a dispute over deductibles that left her with a pediatrician's bill for $457.

Five hours to take her son to a specialist? Is that what the President means when he says the Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of this law they voted for? Almost $500 out of pocket to see a pediatrician? Is that the kind of powerful effect President Obama wanted his health care law to have on families? That is what he said last week, ``a powerful effect on their lives.'' What does the President have to say to this woman, to Alexis?

The only reason health care costs are not even higher for a lot of people is because the Obama administration decided to give subsidies to some people to help hide the true costs. Over the next few months, the Supreme Court is going to decide if President Obama is breaking his own law by giving out some of those subsidies.

Millions of people in 37 States may suddenly find that they have to bear the expenses of ObamaCare entirely on their own, buying insurance that many of them don't want, don't need, and can't afford, covering lots of things they would never buy insurance for if given the personal choice, but the President says they must because he seems to know more about what they need for their families than they do.

Last December several of us asked the administration to start warning people, people who buy insurance through the healthcare.gov Web site-- the disastrous Web site--to inform those people that they may lose their subsidies come this summer when the Supreme Court makes its ruling.

We asked the administration--the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Treasury--to let us know how the administration plans to protect people who might get caught in the mess that President Obama and his administration and all the people who voted for it created. All we have heard in response is that the administration has no plans--no plans--to warn anyone or to do anything to help Americans harmed by the President's health care law. This has the potential to be yet another ObamaCare train wreck.

Another study came out last month that looked at the change in health insurance coverage for the first 9 months of 2014. It found that there was a total change of about 8 million more people who actually have coverage. The problem is that most of those people were just added to Medicaid. Medicaid is a program that is already broken and doesn't work well. As a doctor who has taken care of patients in Wyoming for almost a quarter of a century, I can tell you that Medicaid across the country is a broken system. Yet the people who have gotten health insurance-- not care; the President is quick to use the word ``covered,'' but he doesn't use the word ``care'' because there is a huge difference. I can tell you that as a doctor. There were about 6 million people enrolled in the individual market, mostly through the exchanges, except 5 million people lost their insurance that they had gotten before through work.

So when you take a look at the net effect on coverage, 89 percent of those newly covered got it through Medicaid. That works out to a net gain of a little under 1 million people who actually got private insurance, in spite of the exchanges and in spite of the subsidies.

Seven and a half million got it through Medicaid. All of that expense and all of the hardship President Obama caused on American families-- families who have suffered as a result of the President's health care law--and most of the net gain in coverage is people who went onto Medicaid?

The American people didn't ask for this. If President Obama actually talked with a real representative sample of Americans, he would know that. But he doesn't. He only hears what he wants to hear. He disregards the rest. He didn't do that last week. He still refuses to listen to people who have been hurt by his law.

It is time for the President to be honest with the American people about the ways his law has harmed them. This is it--New York Times, Sunday, February 8, ``Insured, but Not Covered: New policies have many Americans scrambling.''

It is time for the President to start working with Republicans to give people the kind of health care reform they wanted all along-- access to the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what the American people are demanding, and that is what they deserve, and that is what Republicans are going to give them when we get the opportunity to do so. It is time for President Obama to join us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President. I wish to discuss legislation I introduced yesterday that would help Native American irrigators, ranchers, farmers, and families fully utilize the irrigation systems in Indian Country. The bill, S. 438, is entitled the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act, or the IRRIGATE Act.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me as co-sponsors of this legislation, including Senators Tester, Hatch, Enzi, Daines and Bennet.

Careful management of water in Indian communities is essential if we are to ensure a reliable supply in the future. Many ranchers and farmers, both Indian and non-Indian, still depend on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, to deliver water for their needs.

The Department of the Interior initiated several Indian irrigation projects in the late 1800s and early 1900s intended as a central component of tribal economies. In most cases, the Federal Government did not even complete these projects. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office released a report on Indian irrigation projects, which highlighted the inefficiencies of the operation, maintenance, and management by the BIA.

While the BIA has indicated that the current backlog is estimated to be in excess of $560 million, some Indian tribes estimate that this backlog estimate may be even higher. The most recent information from the BIA clearly reflects an upward trend in the costs of these systems, growing from $549 million to in excess of $560 million in only one- quarter year alone.

Deferred maintenance means inefficient water delivery and damaged infrastructure. For the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, these issues are perpetual problems. Tribal economies depend on these water systems--and the BIA has an obligation to repair those irrigation systems.

The bill intends to bring the BIA irrigation systems into the 21st century. The bill would authorize $35 million each year from FY 2015 to 2036, to address the deferred maintenance needs of certain BIA irrigation projects. This includes any structures, facilities, equipment, or vehicles used in connection with the projects. The bill would also require a longer-term study on the operations of these projects.

This bipartisan bill is supported by many Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to join in the comments from my able and learned colleague from South Dakota to talk about what happened when the President yesterday released his budget for the next fiscal year.

I agree with my colleague from South Dakota that the President's spending is absolutely astonishing. The President wants to spend $4 trillion in 2016. That is $1 billion 4,000 times. Nobody has ever seen a budget that big before.

The New York Times ran an article right after the budget came out yesterday with the headline ``Liberal aspirations, set out as a budget.'' The article said:

President Obama presented a budget on Monday that is more

utopian vision than pragmatic blueprint.

The American people don't want a utopian vision. They want responsible leadership--responsible leadership that understands their needs and the challenges people face every day.

So far this year, all we have seen from the President is a list of ways he wants to spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. These ideas are so unrealistic, there has been no sign that the President actually wants to get anything done for the rest of his term. If the President wanted to get something done, what he would do is write a budget that spends a reasonable amount of money in a responsible way. If he wanted to get something done, he would offer responsible tax simplification.

Instead, the President of the United States asked for more taxes on hard-working American families. That is what he did when he said last month that he wanted to raise taxes on college savings plans. Millions of people use those plans to give their children a better future. When even Democrats in Congress told the President it was a terrible idea, the President finally had to relent and drop his plan.

Then came the State of the Union Address, and the President had more ideas for even additional new taxes. The Tax Policy Center analyzed those ideas, and they found that millions of middle-class families would pay even higher taxes under the President's plans. When they looked at families squarely in the middle of the middle class, they found that only about one in four of them would even get a tax break and, instead, twice as many families in the middle of the middle class--twice as many families--would see their taxes go up, and they would pay almost $300 more on average under President Obama's plan. How is that a good deal for hard-working taxpayers all across the country, for middle-class families?

Another study looked at some of the President's other plans for tax increases. It found those ideas would lead to a smaller economy and smaller incomes. How is that a good idea for the middle class?

Now we have the President's budget. Next year, he wants to increase spending by 7 percent over what Washington will spend this year. Did most Americans get a raise of 7 percent last year? Of course not. Under President Obama's economy, wages have been stagnant. Part-time workers are having their hours cut, their paychecks cut. Why? Because of the President's health care law. People are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays for health insurance that meets all of President Obama's mandates but doesn't necessarily meet the needs for them and their families. President Obama still has not learned that every dollar Washington takes out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers all across the country is a dollar they can't use for themselves, to spend, to save, to invest.

In his budget the President sent over yesterday, he wants to add another $474 billion to Washington's debt next year alone--see what the debt is, and he wants to add it to the debt on top of that. He wants another $8.5 trillion over the next decade. Every one of those numbers is right there in his budget, and every one of them is bad news for hard-working American taxpayers.

Americans aren't asking the President to add trillions of dollars to Washington's out-of-control spending and debt. They know they are the ones who are going to have to pay for this new spending. The President may not realize it, but the American taxpayer knows it.

The White House says it can add all of this new spending because the budget deficit this year, as they say, will only be $468 billion. That is how out of touch this administration is. The President sees a deficit of $468 billion--and that is adding it on top of the debt--and is declaring victory. He wants to celebrate by piling on more debt to spend on his priorities, not on the priorities of hard-working American families. That is not a victory.

Over the next 10 years, under President Obama's budget, the debt in Washington is going to climb to more than $26 trillion. That is $75,000 that each man, woman, and child in America would owe to pay off the debt President Obama is suggesting in his budget.

We have all of that debt, and the President's budget does nothing to preserve and protect Social Security. There is nothing to preserve and protect Social Security so it will be there for the next generation. Is that really the legacy President Obama wants to leave for America's young people?

At least the President will send his budget to Congress by the deadline this year. This is President Obama's seventh budget, and five of those he turned over after the legal deadline. Maybe the President should have taken a little more time to double check his math because the President's figures don't add up for the American people.

President Obama's economic policies have led to far less growth than we would have had following the recession. According to the latest numbers released on Friday, our economy grew by just 2.4 percent last year. That is not really what it should be, not for our country. We have tried President Obama's ideas for the last 6 years, and they have failed. They have failed the American people. This budget is more of the same ideas--more middle-class taxes, more spending, more debt. And Democrats in Congress didn't even offer a budget the past few years.

Republicans are ready to do the work of passing a responsible budget. We are going to pass a budget with commonsense spending that fits America's priorities, not Washington and President Obama's priorities. We will pass a budget that actually helps middle-class families thrive and our economy grow. We will pass a budget that takes control of Washington spending and starts to bring down President Obama's massive debt. Republicans in Congress understand that governing responsibly begins with budgeting responsibly. Instead of more new spending that middle-class, hard-working American families can't afford, we will balance the budget. We will cut waste and support programs that deliver real results.

That is what the President should have done. What he should have done is shown real leadership, not just more utopian vision. The President missed his chance to lead. Republicans will produce a budget that focuses on jobs, economic growth, and opportunity for all Americans.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, last November the American people sent an unmistakable message to Washington, DC. Voters across the country said they were tired of the gridlock and they were tired of the lack of action by the Democratic-led Senate.

Well, we are now working again for the American people because voters said it was time for a new majority--the Republican majority--to get the Senate working again and to get America on a better course. Republicans heard the message. We heard it loud and clear, and we have been doing exactly what the American people have sent us here to do.

Under Republican leadership the Senate is working again for the American people, and the best example of that is the bill we are considering now in the Senate on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The Obama administration has blocked and delayed this job-creating project for 6 years. Now Republicans are moving forward. We are moving it forward as well. We have had an open debate on the bill, and we have allowed amendments to the bill.

Imagine that. We are actually debating legislation on the floor of the Senate, and Senators are actually offering amendments to that bill.

We are all familiar with the milestone the Senate reached last week. Last year, under the Democratic leadership, there were a total of 15 up-or-down votes on amendments--15 for the entire year under Harry Reid. That is all the Democratic leader allowed.

But by the end of the day last Thursday, we completed our 25th amendment vote. Just 22 days into the year, the Senate had already been more productive on amendments than it was on 365 days under Democratic leadership.

We didn't stop there. Today the Senate will vote on up to 18 more amendments to the Keystone jobs bill and then another 12 after that.

Several Democratic Senators complained the other day about what they said was a lack of amendment votes on this bill. Well, where were they last year when the Democratic leader allowed only 15 votes to get an up-or-down vote on an amendment for an entire year?

Senator Schatz and Senator Markey, two Democrats, had never had a vote on one of their amendments in the Senate before Republicans gave them a vote last week. Senator Coons will get his first vote on an amendment today.

All of these amendments aren't the only way again the Senate is working for the American people. Another is going to happen on Thursday. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going to hold a hearing on a bill that I introduced earlier this month.

We have four Republican sponsors on that bill and four Democratic sponsors: Senators Heinrich, Bennet, Heitkamp, and Kaine. It is the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. Now Senator Toomey, a Republican, was added as cosponsor, and Senator Udall, a Democrat, was added as cosponsor. So there are five Republican and five Democratic cosponsors.

This is an idea that the House considered last year, and it passed with bipartisan support. Forty-six Democrats voted in favor of increasing America's exports of liquefied natural gas. The House is expected to vote again and pass a bill like this one this week. This is an idea that has bipartisan support in the Senate as well. So it should be a no-brainer. Plans to send American energy overseas are wrapped up in Washington redtape, and Americans who are eager for the jobs on these projects continue to wait.

This bipartisan bill will do a lot to fix that problem. It would set clear deadlines for Washington to make timely decisions on these import permits--export permits, important permits to export liquefied natural gas.

Once there has been an agreement and an appropriate environmental review, the Secretary of Energy will have only 45 days to act on a permit application. Increasing American natural gas exports would do three important things.

No. 1, it would create jobs. That is, of course, most important. These are American jobs, jobs for Americans. The private sector wants to create these jobs--not government jobs but private sector jobs.

No. 2, it would help to reduce our Nation's trade deficit. The trade deficit currently stands at $39 billion.

No. 3, these exports would support our American allies. Last year Russia invaded Ukraine and seized control of Crimea. Why? Largely because of the natural gas facilities there.

There was a group of Senators who were actually in Ukraine. I was one of them the day the Russian helicopters landed just north of the gas plants there. This was about the gas. Well, we could help reduce the threat Russia poses to Europe by offering more options for our allies to buy American natural gas.

There is no good reason for the endless delays on these export permits. Our bill would speed up the process. These export projects are job creators with bipartisan support. They have been stuck in Washington's bureaucrat gridlock.

The Senate is going to be acting to get these projects moving. That is why the American people sent us to the Senate. It is how the Senate is supposed to work. Committees consider the ideas on both sides, the bills get debated in committee and on the floor, and every Senator has a chance to talk about it and then to offer amendments that might improve legislation. That is how it has always worked before. It is a slow process. It was meant to produce consensus.

The majority leader, Harry Reid, changed all of that. The Democratic majority leader did everything he could to block amendments and to bypass and to skip committees. Did he do it to make better laws? No, not at all. Did he do it to speed up action so the Senate could be more productive? Of course not.

It was a transparent campaign tactic to keep vulnerable Democratic Senators from having to take tough votes. Even Democrats couldn't get votes on their amendments. Well, that gimmick by Harry Reid--the campaign tricks--failed, and the American people were not fooled.

That is one of the reasons voters across the country chose Republicans to lead both Houses of Congress. The American people said they deserve better, and the American people are absolutely right. The American people want Democrats to start working with Republicans to get things done.

That is what Senator Heinrich and I--and others who are cosponsoring this measure today--are doing with our bill. The American people want an honest debate on important issues such as the Keystone jobs bill, as well. The American people want their representatives in the Senate to be able to offer amendments to bills such as this one.

That is how the Senate should work. That is how the Senate is working under Republican leadership, and that is how it is going to continue to work.

So I am pleased to see the votes are going to be held on these amendments. I am pleased to stand and cast my vote on behalf of the people of Wyoming. I look forward to more votes, more debate, and more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle.

It is interesting that President Obama has threatened to veto eight separate pieces of legislation so far this year. It is interesting to the point that it has a headline in today's USA Today, page 2A: ``Obama veto threats are at record high.'' Veto threats are at a record high.

The President has said he will veto another two bills that haven't even been introduced yet. If they haven't even been introduced, how does he know what they are going to say? How does he know what they are going to say once they go through the process of being amended, passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and get to his desk?

The President should reconsider each and every one of these veto threats.

The Senate is moving forward. The White House is putting up roadblocks. That is not what the American people were asking for in November. The American people want us to work together to get things done, to make their lives better. It is about them. It is not about the people who sit in this body, it is about the American people--their quality of life, people living paycheck to paycheck, day to day, what their lives are about.

The Republican Congress and this Senate continue to listen to the American people. The President of the United States continues to ignore them.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would further advance the goals of Indian self-governance and self-determination. The legislation is entitled, the Department of the Interior Self-Governance Act of 2015. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Indian Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Senator Tester and Senator Murkowski.

One of the cornerstones of Federal Indian policy is the concept of tribal self-determination and self-governance. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Act, Public Law No. 93-638 authorizes Indian tribes to carry out certain Federal Indian programs, activities, and functions within the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Health and Human Services.

Self-governance is both a policy and procedure whereby, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Indian tribes administer Federal programs for Indians. Tribal administration of these programs promotes local control and decision-making for these important programs that affect the local tribal community.

Tribal administration through these processes also serves to reduce Federal bureaucracy. This legislation promotes accountability by maintaining requirements that Indian tribes must demonstrate a higher level of responsible governance and administration. Good governance is vital for continuing this policy.

The act gives authority to the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services to enter into 638 contracts and self-governance compacts with Indian tribes. Each 638 contact or self-governance compact identifies functions and activities to be carried out by the tribe, as well as any administrative, reporting, or other requirements that must be followed.

Despite the increased flexibility in the tribal self-governance program, Indian tribes have stated to Congress that the Department of the Interior has, for many years, resisted the efforts by tribes to carry out Interior programs. Without additional reforms, the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act cannot reach its full potential.

The bill intends to clarify and expand the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This legislation will give tribes a better opportunity to advance the policy of tribal self- governance by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to select up to 50 new Indian tribes to participate in the tribal self-governance program. In addition, the bill clarifies that provisions of water settlements and their authorizing legislation will not be affected by the self-governance amendments. Furthermore, nothing in this will expand or limit programs eligible for self-governance compacts beyond those already authorized under current law.

This bipartisan bill is supported by Indian tribes across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would further advance the goals of Indian self-governance and self-determination. The legislation is entitled, the Department of the Interior Self-Governance Act of 2015. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Indian Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Senator Tester and Senator Murkowski.

One of the cornerstones of Federal Indian policy is the concept of tribal self-determination and self-governance. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Act, Public Law No. 93-638 authorizes Indian tribes to carry out certain Federal Indian programs, activities, and functions within the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Health and Human Services.

Self-governance is both a policy and procedure whereby, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Indian tribes administer Federal programs for Indians. Tribal administration of these programs promotes local control and decision-making for these important programs that affect the local tribal community.

Tribal administration through these processes also serves to reduce Federal bureaucracy. This legislation promotes accountability by maintaining requirements that Indian tribes must demonstrate a higher level of responsible governance and administration. Good governance is vital for continuing this policy.

The act gives authority to the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services to enter into 638 contracts and self-governance compacts with Indian tribes. Each 638 contact or self-governance compact identifies functions and activities to be carried out by the tribe, as well as any administrative, reporting, or other requirements that must be followed.

Despite the increased flexibility in the tribal self-governance program, Indian tribes have stated to Congress that the Department of the Interior has, for many years, resisted the efforts by tribes to carry out Interior programs. Without additional reforms, the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act cannot reach its full potential.

The bill intends to clarify and expand the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This legislation will give tribes a better opportunity to advance the policy of tribal self- governance by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to select up to 50 new Indian tribes to participate in the tribal self-governance program. In addition, the bill clarifies that provisions of water settlements and their authorizing legislation will not be affected by the self-governance amendments. Furthermore, nothing in this will expand or limit programs eligible for self-governance compacts beyond those already authorized under current law.

This bipartisan bill is supported by Indian tribes across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 18, as Modified

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 99

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 126, as Modified

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2015.

In recent years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has received concerns from Indian tribes and the energy industry that the Federal laws governing the development of tribal energy resources are complex and often lead to significant costs, delays and uncertainty for all parties. These costs, delays and uncertainties discourage development of tribal energy resources and drive investments away from tribal lands.

According to the National Congress of American Indians, Indian tribes hold nearly a quarter of American onshore oil and gas reserves. Yet, existing tribal energy production represents less than 5 percent of the current national production. If we can remove the costs and delays of developing energy on Indian lands, we could potentially see the country's energy production, and thus energy independence, increase significantly.

Nearly 10 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act created a new, alternative process for Indian tribes to take control of developing their energy resources on their own lands without the burdens of administrative review, approval, and oversight.

This approach gives Indian tribes the option to enter into tribal energy resource agreements with the Secretary of the Interior. Once an Indian tribe enters into this agreement, it has the authority to enter into subsequent leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way affecting energy development, without further review and approval by the Secretary--a significant

departure from the standard laws, and consequent bureaucracy, applicable to tribal contracts.

That law was a step in the right direction. However, these agreements have not been utilized to the extent that they could be, primarily because the implementation of the act has been made more complex than it should be.

It is past time we make key improvements to the law so that Indian tribes can take advantage of these agreements and significantly reduce bureaucratic burdens to energy development. Years of consultation and outreach to Indian tribes have produced targeted solutions to address the concerns about the process for entering these agreements. The bill that I am introducing today would streamline the process for approving the tribal energy resource agreements and make it more predictable for Indian tribes.

I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill. This bill includes a number of amendments to improve the review and approval process for the tribal energy resource agreements. For example, the bill provides clarity regarding the specific information required for tribal applications for these agreements.

In addition, the bill sets forth specific time frames for Secretarial determinations on the agreement applications. Moreover, if an application is disapproved, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to provide detailed explanations to the Indian tribe and steps for addressing the reasons for disapproval.

The bill has various provisions that would improve technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes during their energy planning and development stages. It also includes an amendment to the Federal Power Act that would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original licenses for hydroelectric projects are issued.

Additionally, this bill would allow Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals to help expedite the Secretary's approval process for tribal agreements for mineral resource development.

My bill does not focus on only traditional resource development, but includes renewal resource development components as well. For example, the bill would create tribal biomass demonstration projects to provide Indian tribes with more reliable and potentially long-term supplies of woody biomass materials.

This bill is intended to provide Indian tribes with the tools to develop and use energy more efficiently. In passing this bill, Congress will enhance the ability of Indian tribes to exercise self- determination over the development of energy resources located on tribal lands, thereby improving the lives and economic well-being of Native Americans.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senators Tester, McCain, Hoeven, Enzi, and Fischer for joining me in cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing this bill expeditiously.