[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8613-S8616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          A Nuclear-Armed Iran

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to speak about an issue of 
great importance to the national security of the United States and to 
all of our allies--which is, preventing Iran from ever having a nuclear 
weapon. There is no doubt in my mind that we will in fact do that, but 
certain things have to happen. The question is how, not whether, we 
prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
  For the first time in years, there is a real opportunity to take a 
good step to verifiably eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons capability 
through tough negotiations rather than the alternative--which is, 
inevitably, acts of war.
  The initial interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is an 
encouraging first step, and I urge my colleagues not to put it at risk. 
How would they do that? By passing new sanctions right now. There is a 
lot of talk about that, and it is easy to look tough. I am kind of 
amazed, to be honest with you, that, I don't think, anybody from our 
side has gotten up and made a speech about this subject on the Senate 
floor. I meant to yesterday but I couldn't. I thank Senator Johnson, 
chairman of the banking committee, who has come to the rescue of all of 
us. He is not going to allow it to happen, and I totally congratulate 
him for that act of quiet and strong courage.
  Instead, we should simply state the obvious: If Iran reneges or plays 
games, there is no question in anybody's mind in this Senate that we 
will quickly pass new sanctions the very moment the need arises. To me, 
this is a clear-cut case. Again, I frankly do not understand why more 
of us, at least on this side, have not gotten up to make this case. I 
think I have some ideas, but I do wonder.
  There is still a long way to go, no question. But this diplomatic 
opportunity is real. Why? Because Iran wants and needs to find a way 
out of the financial isolation that our crippling sanctions have 
inflicted on its government, its business, and its people. It is 
devastating what our sanctions have done.
  Iran's people elected a president who proposed a different path. 
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has given President Rouhani 
some flexibility to try and find an agreement. That is unprecedented, 
and most people think it is for real. We shall see. They did in fact 
agree to the initial deal. So already, one step has been taken with a 
good result. I don't think it is a coincidence.
  The immense power of U.S.-led global financial sanctions, backed up 
by our allies, has created the opportunity to resolve this issue 
diplomatically, with verifiable agreements and skeptical inspectors, 
rather than with bombs or boots on the ground.
  I have spent much of my tenure on the Intelligence Committee, going 
back before 9/11, with the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, 
the NSA, the FBI, and the Treasury Department to build our tools to 
exploit and to freeze the international web of financial networks that 
enable terrorist and proliferation programs--particularly Iran's 
nuclear programs. I have staunchly supported the powerful multilateral 
sanctions regime that is currently suffocating the Iranian economy and 
forced the current Iranian regime to the negotiating table. They would 
not have been there otherwise. The effect of inflation and devastation 
of economic production and all the rest is devastating.
  This initial agreement is the first concrete result of those 
sanctions. It stops progress on Iran's nuclear program. It neutralizes 
Iran's most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material--that is, 20 
percent of enriched uranium--and it establishes strong monitoring 
mechanisms that enable inspectors to verify that Iran is in compliance 
with its commitments.
  The first step maintains the powerful sanctions regime that has 
forced Iran to the table. The agreement maintains that. The very small 
amount of targeted and reversible financial relief that it provides--
roughly $7 billion out of $100 billion in sanctions that the agreement 
leaves fully in place--only underscores the grip that we and our allies 
have on Iran's financial position. The grip will not loosen during this 
6-month agreement as we try to go to a next step. We will continue to 
control and limit Iran's access to money during the 6-month agreement. 
If Iran in fact reneges on the terms of the interim deal, Iran will not 
even get all of the small relief that we have agreed to. They will, 
however, get more sanctions, and over the next 6 months, the small 
amount of financial relief that Iran can gain in the deal will be 
dwarfed by the amount of their loss in oil revenue that our continuing 
sanctions will deny Iran. That was in place; that is in place. Iran 
will be in worse shape financially 6 months from now than it is today. 
That is a fact. The pressure does not relent. It just keeps going. So 
it is a good situation--tough, agreed to, and in place.
  That is why Iran needs to complete a final comprehensive agreement to 
eliminate its nuclear weapons capabilities. Does that guarantee it? No, 
it doesn't. But we are a step further than we were before because this 
interim agreement does not give Iran what it needs to escape financial 
ruin--which counts.

  I appreciate the concerns of colleagues who want more now. But we 
must give this opportunity a chance. However you see the first step, 
whatever your view of it is, the fact is that today Iran is further 
from a nuclear weapon than it would have been without this deal that we 
have just completed. We have accomplished this first step through 
diplomatic strength, without a shot fired. I think we can agree that is 
pretty good.
  We all want to put pressure on Iran to comply with the commitments it 
has made to the interim agreement--and we will--and to agree to a long-
term comprehensive deal--and we hope--that will prevent it from ever 
developing a weapon. But we have taken the first step.
  My colleagues, the pressure already exists for Iran to continue on 
this diplomatic path. Again, if Iran reneges on the commitments it has 
made in this agreement or balks at a final deal that verifiably ends 
its nuclear weapons capabilities, we will go right to, without doubt, 
the Congress imposing new and ever more powerful sanctions on Iran. But 
we don't have to do that now. In fact, it is a terrible mistake to do 
that now.
  Given the indisputable credibility of that threat, I urge my 
colleagues to consider how unnecessary and how risky it would be to 
preemptively introduce new sanctions right now. New sanctions now could 
be criticized as a violation of the interim agreement. It could be 
blown up that way. Such a move would separate us from our negotiating 
partners in the P5+1 and it could complicate the already difficult 
negotiations of a final agreement which we all pray for.
  I know some Senators doubt these risks. But I ask my colleagues this: 
If there is any chance at all that new sanctions right now might 
disrupt the agreement or jeopardize a future agreement, why on earth 
would we risk that? Why would we risk that? We know where we stand. We 
know where we are going. We can't be sure that we are going to get 
there, but we know that we always have the power to increase sanctions 
if they try to avoid certain things. But they haven't. So why pile on 
now and threaten to blow the whole thing up? Why would we risk an 
opportunity that may very well be the only chance we have to resolve 
this enormous problem without the use of military force? I do not know 
of an alternative to that.
  If we lose this diplomatic opportunity, then the use of force will be 
the only option to stop Iran's path to a nuclear bomb. All of us have 
lived with war for the past 12 years. Intimately, painfully, 
horrifically, we have all seen close up the incalculable financial and 
human cost that has come with these wars and the burden that the wars 
now put on our troops, their families, our economy, and, therefore, our 
people. This has only hardened my resolve to ensure that this immense 
sacrifice never happens unnecessarily--that we take great care to 
exhaust every possible avenue to diplomatic resolution.
  Colleagues, we have now an opportunity to eliminate Iran's nuclear 
weapons capabilities. We can do it peacefully. Let's not put that at 
risk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page S8614]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, President Lincoln once said:

       Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. 
     The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real 
     thing.

  It is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on two nominees 
that are indeed the real thing--Justice Brian Morris and Judge Susan 
Watters. The Senate will soon take up both Justice Morris's and Judge 
Watters's nominations for United States District Judge for the District 
of Montana.
  One of the most important responsibilities I have is providing advice 
and consent to the President on nominations to the Federal bench. I 
approach each vacancy with the same criteria--I want the best, 
regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, liberal or 
conservative. Justice Morris and Judge Watters are the best. Their 
quality of character and breadth of experience are remarkable.
  Montana Supreme Court Justice Brian Morris is one of the brightest 
legal minds to ever come out of Montana. Justice Morris was born and 
raised in Butte, MT, and graduated from Butte Central High School. He 
earned bachelors and masters degrees in economics from Stanford 
University and received his law degree with distinction from Stanford 
University Law School in 1992.
  Justice Morris's experience after law school is as varied as it is 
noteworthy. He clerked for Judge John Noonan, Jr., of the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals and Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the United 
States Supreme Court. He spent time working abroad as a legal assistant 
at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague and as a legal officer at 
the United Nations Compensation Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. He 
also spent time in private practice, handling criminal and commercial 
litigation with the Bozeman, MT, firm of Goetz, Madden, & Dunn.
  Justice Morris also served for years as the State's Solicitor 
General. He was elected to his current position on the Montana Supreme 
Court in 2004, and has demonstrated integrity, fairness, a steady 
disposition, and superb analytical skills on Montana's highest court. 
Justice Morris is known for his approachability, even-handedness, and 
down-to-earth manner. After all, he is from Butte. He can often be 
found reading to students at Smith Elementary School in Helena.
  Justice Morris has commanded the respect of his colleagues at the 
highest levels of the law. For more than 8 years, he has served the 
people of Montana on the bench and in the community. His nomination is 
an extraordinary cap on an already remarkable career, and I have no 
doubt that he will continue to serve at the highest level. I 
congratulate Justice Morris, his wife Cherche, and their children Max, 
Mekdi, Aiden, and William, on this achievement.
  In 1916, Montanans elected Jeanette Rankin to be the first woman to 
serve in Congress 4 years before women had the right to vote. We are 
especially proud of this fact. Judge Susan Watters, our second nominee, 
is another trailblazer we can be proud of. Not only is Judge Watters a 
respected jurist and dedicated public servant, but once confirmed, she 
will be the first woman to serve as a United States District Court 
Judge for the State of Montana.
  Judge Watters was born and raised in Billings, MT, and graduated with 
honors from Eastern Montana College. Judge Watters raised 2 young 
daughters while attending the University of Montana Law School, 
receiving her law degree in 1988. Since then, Judge Watters has 
cemented her reputation as a skilled trial lawyer and judge.
  After law school, Judge Watters served as Deputy County Attorney for 
Yellowstone County, handling civil and criminal cases. In 1995, Judge 
Watters entered private practice, taking hundreds of cases to final 
judgment in State and Federal court. In 1999, Governor Marc Racicot 
appointed her to sit as a State district court judge for Montana's 13th 
judicial district in Billings. Since her appointment, Judge Watters has 
been reelected 3 times, most recently with over 80 percent of the vote.
  Judge Watters has tried hundreds of cases during her 14-plus years on 
the bench. She has heard civil, criminal, probate, juvenile, and family 
law cases. Her trial court experience is remarkable.
  She further served her community by establishing the Yellowstone 
County Family Drug Treatment Court in 2001, the first of its kind in 
Montana. Its overwhelming success has made it a national model.
  Judge Watters is known for being fair, hard-working, possessing 
strong analytical skills and an excellent judicial temperament. Her 
extensive trial experience as a practicing lawyer and trial judge will 
be an invaluable addition to Montana's Federal bench.
  Judge Watters embodies the qualities that service on the Federal 
bench requires. She has served the people of Yellowstone County for 
over a decade, and I am absolutely confident that she will bring the 
same professionalism and dignity to the Federal bench. I want to 
congratulate Judge Watters, her husband Ernie, and their daughters 
Jessica and Maggie on this outstanding achievement.
  Justice Morris and Judge Watters are supremely qualified. Their 
service is sorely needed. We have two vacancies in our State. We have 
three Federal district court judgeships. The vacancies that Judge 
Watters and Justice Morris will fill are both considered judicial 
emergencies. Chief Judge Dana Christensen, our lone active judge, 
travels over 300 miles round trip to hear cases. In fact, I just spoke 
to him yesterday, telling him we would be filling these positions in 
Montana. He said, Max, I am getting in the car right now to drive. 
What's the distance? I won't say the distance. It is a 4-hour drive to 
Great Falls, MT, from Missoula, so he could sit and hear some cases in 
Great Falls. Judge Don Molloy travels over 340 miles one way. That is 
greater than the distance between Washington, DC and Hartford, CT. He 
does that to hear cases. We need our replacements.
  Justice Morris and Judge Watters embody the qualities Montanans 
demand of their Federal judges--their intellect, their experience, and 
integrity above reproach. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
their nominations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise to address the nomination of 
Cornelia Pillard for the DC Circuit. It appears to me the environment 
in which we are discussing these nominations is a good example of the 
new rules of the Senate. We are already getting a taste of the new 
world order around here. It did not take long. It has only been a few 
weeks but we are already experiencing life in the new Senate. Those in 
the majority who wanted to change the rules are now certainly getting 
their wish.
  It should have been obvious that the rule change would impact the 
Senate in many unforeseen ways. We in the minority have had to find 
other ways to make our voices heard. As we watch the majority use its 
new power to move whomever it wants through this body, we should 
realize that we have started down a course from which we will never 
return. Indeed, we should expect more changes in the future. The 
majority changed the rules because it did not like how they were 
operating to frustrate their ambitions and agenda. If other things come 
about that frustrate the majority, we may have new changes to get rid 
of those frustrations too. The invocation of the nuclear option has set 
us on an irreversible course.
  A few weeks ago I came to this floor and quoted our former 
Parliamentarian Bob Dove. He and Richard Arenberg, one-time aide to 
former majority leader George Mitchell, wrote a book called ``Defending 
the Filibuster.'' This is what they said, and it bears repeating:

       If a 51-vote majority is empowered to rewrite the Senate's 
     rules, the day will come, as it did in the House of 
     Representatives, when a majority will construct rules that 
     give it near absolute control over amendments and debate. And 
     there is no going back from that. No majority in the House of 
     Representatives has or ever will voluntarily relinquish that 
     power in order to give the minority greater voice in crafting 
     legislation.

  Unfortunately, the majority didn't seem to care about the concern 
these wise men raised and went ahead with their rule change anyway. Now 
we are feeling the effect.

[[Page S8615]]

  This power grab is having other consequences too. Today I attended a 
hearing in the rules committee as the ranking member, for nominees to 
an agency called the Election Assistance Commission. You probably never 
heard of it. Madam President, I doubt if you have ever heard of it. It 
is a small agency with 4 commissioners--2 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 
Nominations to bipartisan commissions have traditionally been paired 
and moved jointly. This practice ensured each party has a voice in such 
bodies.
  Before the rules were changed, the minority could be assured that 
their consent would be needed for appointments. That assurance is now 
gone. Will the majority just make its own appointments to commissions 
such as this now? I hope not. That is under discussion in the rules 
committee. But what motivation do they have to ever confirm any 
Republican nominee, if they so choose to even consider minority views 
in this regard? We are going down a dangerous path, and no one knows 
where it will lead.
  The same is true in regard to the atmosphere that we find with the 
affordable health care act. For some reason, the executive has decided 
to make any changes to the law without really considering coming back 
to the Senate or the House or the Congress to make these changes. So in 
part I come to the floor to speak about an issue that continues to keep 
me up every night--and every Kansan as well--that is the implementation 
of this affordable health care act, the health reform law.
  This is, indeed, the President's legacy legislation. Based on what I 
am hearing from Kansans at home, I would think the President would want 
to be remembered for something else entirely. Unfortunately, since the 
implementation of ObamaCare began, the stories and reports have only 
confirmed the many warnings that I and my colleagues have made during 
the debate for the last 3 years.
  People cannot keep their coverage. Despite the many, even hundreds of 
promises made by this President and the supporters of this law, people 
are losing their coverage. Premiums are increasing, even though the 
President and supporters of this law said premiums would decrease by 
$2,500 for all Americans. Most of the stories I hear, and especially 
from Kansans, involve many hundreds of dollars in increases in monthly 
premiums.
  Even more recently, folks are realizing that what they had to pay in 
out-of-pocket costs are going to skyrocket. Deductibles are higher and 
the products, drugs, and services Kansans have to pay to reach their 
deductible has virtually exploded. This doesn't even count the 
increases to copays and other costs that patients are seeing, 
especially with regard to prescription drugs.
  This is being done in a way so that patients are getting the full 
information they need. So much for being the most transparent 
government in history.
  Along these lines I believe it is my responsibility to come to the 
floor and remind Kansans about several other provisions of ObamaCare 
that patients may not be aware will put the government between the 
patient and the doctor--their doctor. During the health care reform 
debate, I spoke at length in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee and in the Finance Committee, and on the Senate floor about 
something called rationing, a subject that is very controversial. 
Specifically, I want people to know about the four rationers--boards, 
commissions, whatever you want to talk about--the four rationers 
included in ObamaCare.
  First is the CMS Innovation Center, the Center for Medicaid Services 
Innovation Center, which was given an enormous budget to find a way to 
reform payments and delivery models. What this really means is CMS can 
now use taxpayer dollars in ways to reduce patient access to care. It 
gives CMS new powers to cut payments to Medicare beneficiaries with a 
goal to reduce program expenditures, but the reality being that they 
will reduce patient access.
  There are new authorities also granted to the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force. The USPSTF used to be a body that was scientific 
and academic, that reviewed treatment, testing, and preventive health 
data and made recommendations for primary care practitioners and health 
care systems.
  I guess many would agree that is still what they do today. However, 
the weight of their recommendations holds significantly more weight as 
of today, due to the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare. Because of this 
law, the health care law, the USPSTF, can now decide what should and, 
more importantly, should not be covered by health care plans. If the 
USPSTF doesn't recommend it, then it will not be covered by your health 
plan and you will bear the cost of the procedure. We are already seeing 
this with prostate exams, mammograms for breast cancer, which many 
people say have saved their lives. You reach a certain age and they 
will not do a PSA test. The same kind of criteria--with some degree--to 
mammograms.

  Rationale No. 3, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute or 
PCORI. This outfit was given millions and millions of dollars to do 
comparative effectiveness research, also known as CER. I am not 
opposed--I don't know of any Member in this body who is opposed--to 
research, especially when it is used to inform the conversation between 
a doctor and their patients.
  But there is a reason this was formerly called cost-effective 
research. There is a very fine line between providing information to 
doctors and patients to help them make the right decision that works 
the best for them and then using that information to decide whether the 
care or treatment is worth paying for. I have long been concerned that 
this research will be abused to arbitrarily deny access to treatments 
or services in order to save the government money by Federal Government 
decree.
  Finally, there is my personal nemesis IPAB, which stands for the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board, and is just now making news as 
various people within the media are finally recognizing IPAB. This is a 
board made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to 
stay and what gets to go in Medicare coverage. They will decide what 
treatments and services will be covered and which will not, all to 
allegedly save money with no accountability. There is no accountability 
whatsoever.
  When proposed--I remember it well both in the HELP Committee and the 
Finance Committee--supporters of the health care law told me we are too 
close to our constituents. Really? We are too close to our 
constituents. It makes it too difficult to make the hard decisions. 
Let's have somebody else do it. It will be more fair. We know them too 
much. We trust them too much.
  I could not believe it. I believe I am elected to make the hard 
decisions--I and others in this body--and take the hard votes. I 
believe that is the way Kansans and every other State constituency also 
wants it.
  Even worse is the fine print of IPAB. Get this. If Kansans determine 
they do not like the direction the IPAB is taking and call my office, 
and every other office in the Senate, to ask us to do something about 
it--to ask me to do something about it--we in Congress can overturn 
their decision, but it has to be by a certain margin. On the surface 
this sounds OK until you realize the President will never support 
Congress overturning the recommendation of this Board, so he will veto 
it. Overriding a veto takes a two-thirds vote, which is 66 votes to 
overturn a decision by IPAB.
  My colleagues have been changing the rules around here because they 
think 60 votes is too high a threshold. What are the chances of 
reaching 66 if a decision is made by IPAB with regard to Medicare?
  But wait. There is more. If the Secretary appoints a board unable to 
make recommendations for cuts to Medicare, then she gets the authority 
to make the decision of what to cut. This President has already cut 
one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, and he 
gave himself the ability to go after even more Medicare dollars and 
have no accountability with IPAB. This is egregious, if not ridiculous, 
but it is not new.
  I have been talking about the four rationers for a long time and what 
it means to patients. I will have more to say about it when the 
opportunity presents itself.
  What scares me, as I watch all the other warnings and broken promises

[[Page S8616]]

come true, is what is going to happen to Kansans--and I know other 
Senators have this same fear--when the warnings about the four 
rationers do come true.
  We need to protect the all-important relationship between the doctor 
and the patient, which I believe the four rationers put at risk. In 
order to do that, we need to repeal--and most important--and replace 
ObamaCare with real reforms that work for Kansans.