Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 23 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 23 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S795-S812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session.
The Senator from Utah.

Tribute to Senator Max Baucus

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased that my colleague and very
dear friend Max Baucus was confirmed by this body the way he was. He
will make a fine ambassador to China. We all know what an honorable,
decent man he is. We all know of his abilities. We all know he has run
a very tough committee, a very important committee, and has done a
terrific job in doing so.
All I can say is I rise to wish my good friend Senator Max Baucus
good luck as he departs to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to China.
We are going to miss Max. I do not think it is fair to this body,
but, nevertheless, I think it is fair to our country because Max will
make a great ambassador. Senator Baucus first came to the Senate in
1978 and has the distinction of being Montana's longest serving
Senator. So, as you can see, I have served with Senator Baucus for a
long time--longer than the two of us would like to admit sometimes.
Over the years I have come to respect his commitment both to his
constituents and to his principles. Having worked side by side with him
on the Senate Finance Committee, I know a lot about his constituents
and his principles. He raises his constituents constantly and his
principles I do not think he ever wavered.
If you want to understand my friend Max Baucus's priorities, take a
look at the sign on his Senate office desk. Like Max, it is to the
point and unequivocal. The sign says: ``Montana comes first.'' Plain
and simple, not much nuance, the language is pretty declarative.
That is Max Baucus. In his long and distinguished Senate career, he
always put the people of Montana first.
Both Senator Baucus and I are westerners, and westerners expect a
certain amount of independence in their Senators. They expect us to
work across the aisle and attempt to solve problems and work together.
Of course, we Republicans tend to view that problem-solving as less
government and Democrats tend to view that problem-solving as more
government. That is not universal, but that is where the two sides
usually come down. That being the case, Max and I have often found
ourselves on different sides of some of these issues. However, we share
the desire to solve problems and, as Max's sign says it, to put our
constituents' interests first. Senator Baucus has always understood
that notion very well, and I am here to declare that to everybody who
listens.
As a result, his disposition--particularly as chairman of the Finance
Committee--has been to try to find a way to a bipartisan yes rather
than a partisan no. I have always respected him for that.
Over the last few years, as I have served along side Max as the
ranking member of the Finance Committee, I have greatly appreciated his
willingness to put partisan differences aside for the greater good of
all.
One adjective you could use to describe Senator Baucus is one that
was used by his predecessor as chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The term I am thinking of is
``indefatigable.''
Whether it was preparing for and running a marathon, walking across
the wide expanse of his home State, or working at one of the many jobs
he regularly undertook back home on recess visits, Max has been
indefatigable.
He has been a tireless legislator. Just ask his staff. They will
affirm that fact. As a Senator, he was always working. I have no doubt
he will do the same as our Nation's Ambassador to China, arguably the
most important diplomatic post in the world today.
As we saw today, the vote on his confirmation was not even close.
That is because all of his colleagues know that Max Baucus is a
committed public servant who will serve the American people with
competence, dignity, and a tireless commitment to our Nation and its
interests.
I have to say I feel personally about this nominee and about this
nomination. I like Max very much. Having served with him on the Senate
Finance Committee, he has always tried to be fair. He has always tried
to consider the other's point of view. He has always tried to consider
different ways of solving problems, and he has worked to do so. That is
about all we can ask from our colleagues on the other side--either
Democrats or Republicans.
I just want to at this time wish Senator Baucus and his lovely wife
Melodee and, of course, his family the best of luck in this and all
future endeavors.
As Max departs the Senate, Senator Baucus leaves behind a great
legacy

[[Page S796]]

and very big shoes to fill. So at this particular point, I hesitate to
say farewell to my friend Max Baucus, but I only say farewell knowing
that he is going to go on to a very important job for our country,
where I think he will do a very good job.
He will have my support as he serves over there, and let's just hope
that we on the Finance Committee can do a better job or at least an
equivalent job to what Max has done to keep these very important issues
on the most important committee of the Congress moving along.
I have nothing but respect for Max. I appreciate him very much. I am
his friend, and I intend to continue this friendship as long as we both
live.
With that, I congratulate Senator Baucus. I am proud of the Senator,
and I intend to support him while he is there as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the Chinese New Year began, as you
probably know, just a couple days ago. I do not know a lot of words in
Chinese, but among the words I have learned is how to say ``Happy New
Year.'' It is a new year in China. It is a new year for Chinese
Americans in this country as well. I think the way we say ``Happy New
Year'' is ``Gong Xi Fa Cai.'' So I say that to my friend.
When word came out that Max had been nominated by the President for
this role, I say to our friend from Utah, I ran into Max. He was about
to go into an elevator, I think in the Hart Building, and I said: I
know the President has nominated you for this, but you can't leave. We
need your leadership on tax reform. We need your leadership on an SGR
fix and doctors and all these other issues--trade policy. You can't
leave now.
He said: Well, the President has nominated me.
I said: Well, I am going to put a hold on your nomination.
He was about to get in the elevator and go away, and he put his head
back out and said: Oh no, you are not.
I was tempted. I was tempted because there is a lot he leaves.
Actually, I think he leaves at a time when this place is working
better. I am encouraged by that. Frankly, I am encouraged by the
relationship the Senator has kindled with Senator Hatch. I am
encouraged by the relationship the Senator has kindled with our friend
Dave Camp from Michigan over in the House as chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee. Max has set an example for the rest of us.
It is ironic the chairman of the committee and the ranking member are
sitting here across the aisle from each other, but the two of them, in
terms of providing personal examples--the kind of leadership we need;
do as I do, not as I say--both of them are terrific at reaching across
the aisle, doing what the people sent us to do: find principled
compromises, get things done.
I wish to mention--let me just ask, and he can maybe nod his head--my
recollection is, when we took up the issue of whether there should be a
Medicare prescription drug program that was supported initially by
Senator Kennedy and by President George W. Bush, I think in the end the
version that prevailed was the version preferred by President Bush.
My recollection is that Senator Baucus may have gone across the aisle
and supported that version of the bill and took me and probably another
10 or so Democrats with him--not an easy thing to do.
I remember going back to Delaware--I have told him this story
before--I went back to Delaware and held a number of townhall meetings,
if you will, on that issue and got excoriated, eviscerated by mostly
Democrats. They would come and say: How could you do this? How could
you support that prescription drug program, the Medicare Part D
Program.
I explained I thought it was a principled compromise. I thought it
would work. A year later, it has an 85-percent approval rating by the
people who use it. For 6 or 7 straight years--it still has an 85-
percent approval rating, a little higher than ours. If you look at how
we are doing in terms of anticipated costs, it is 7 years under
budget--under budget.
When the time came to try to find a compromise on comprehensive
health care reform, I remember the Senator did not just work with 3 or
4 Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee--Senator Grassley,
Senator Snowe, Senator Enzi. The Senator did not work with them for a
couple of days to try a find a principled compromise, Senator Baucus
worked with them for weeks--I think months--to try to do that.
Ultimately, the Senator was unsuccessful. But the Senator led us
through a difficult mark-up in committee and on the floor. I know there
are reservations in that law that we should tweak and change and make
it better. But I think in the end, the Senator's leadership will be
vindicated by a lot of Americans, just like we did with the Medicare
prescription drug program. Obviously, that was the right thing to do.
Thank you for the leadership you provided.
On a personal level, I would say, as Senator Hatch has said, this is
a personal loss to me, and I know to many Democrats and Republicans.
But the Senator leaves behind a wonderful legacy. You leave behind a
whole lot of people, and they all have their resumes--no, not really.
One or two of them may have. But you have a reputation as surrounding
yourself with really good people. I sought to do that. I kind of
learned from you and Senator Hatch, but I have always sought to
surround myself by people smarter than me. My wife always says that it
is not hard to find them.
You have done a great job surrounding yourself with terrific people.
They are here today sitting behind you, over in the Republican side, up
in the galleries--a lot of love here. I hope you feel it from all of
us.
In the Navy when people pull up their anchor and prepare to sail off
into the sunset or the sunrise, whatever the case may be, we always
like to say: Fair winds and a following sea. Fair winds and a following
sea. That is what I wish to you and to Mel. We are going to miss you
here, but we are really going to miss her. We hope we will have an
opportunity to see you again and to work with you again.
We hope the same, that we will have an opportunity to see Mel. We
think the world of her. Good luck to both of you. May God bless you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I just want to make a brief statement
before Senator Baucus speaks and thank him for his service in the
Senate, thank him for representing Montana, and accepting some of the
toughest assignments in the Senate. We have a similarity in our
background. We were both inspired to this position by Senators who
served before us; in his case, Senator Mansfield, who was an
extraordinary leader in the Senate and an extraordinary man when you
consider his contribution to our country. He served in two world wars,
if I am not mistaken, perhaps in three different branches of the
military. It was just an exceptional life of public service which ended
with his ambassadorship to Japan.
Now, Senator Baucus, who was inspired to public life by Senator
Mansfield and followed in his footsteps in representing the State of
Montana, serving in one of the highest leadership spots in the Senate,
is now off to an ambassadorship, which, when you consider the ebb and
flow of history, is singularly the most important ambassadorial
assignment which the United States of America can make.
Today, this overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate is a fitting
tribute to Senator Max Baucus for his service, his friendship, and his
continued dedication to be a servant of our Nation. I wish you and Mel
the very best in this new assignment. We hope to get a chance to come
to see you, and also, more importantly, to work with you, to make sure
that our relationship with China remains strong for decades to come.
Thank you, Max, for being such a great colleague and a friend.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my
colleague, Max Baucus. Senator Baucus has been a leader in the areas of
tax, trade, health, agriculture and the environment. I have served with
him on the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee and have
enjoyed working with him and learning from him. On the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus worked to improve the

[[Page S797]]

health care of all Americans, most notably with the passage of the
Affordable Care Act. It should also be noted, one of his last acts as a
Senator today was to introduce a bipartisan and bicameral agreement on
Medicare physician payment reform. On the Agriculture Committee, he was
a passionate advocate for farmers. Max leaves a legacy he should be
proud of. I wish him well in China and thank him for his continued
service.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Senator Max
Baucus for his confirmation as Ambassador to the People's Republic of
China. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to serve with him for
several years in the Senate and on the Finance Committee, which he
chairs.
Max's entire life has been dedicated to public service. He was a
member of the Montana House early in his career, before being elected
to the U.S. House of Representatives and then the Senate in 1978. Few
people have served as long in the Senate as Max and led such an
illustrious career here. Max has been behind many landmark pieces of
legislation that will benefit people's lives and the country for years
to come. As chairman of the Finance Committee, he has influenced so
many issues that have an impact on American families every day, from
tax policy to pensions, health care, and education.
What is more, I have seen firsthand Max's unique desire to work with
people across the political spectrum. Max's commonsense approach and
collegial nature, learned from growing up on a ranch in Montana, has
played a significant role in his ability to get things done. I hope
that all Senators will learn from his example. In fact, I believe it is
what we must do to best serve the people who elected us.
On behalf of all Floridians, I want to thank Max for serving his
country in the Senate for more than 3 decades. And I wish him well as
he follows in the footsteps of his mentor, Senator Mike Mansfield, in
becoming Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Max Baucus has never been afraid of the
long haul. As the son of Montana ranchers, he knows the meaning of a
long day's work. Before his 1996 election, he walked the length of
Montana, more than 800 miles. In 2003, well past his 60th birthday, he
ran a 50-mile ultra-marathon.
For the last three decades, I have had the privilege of running a
different sort of marathon with Max. We entered the Senate together
after the election of 1978, and have served together since then. Today
we mark the end of that marathon, as Senator Baucus prepares to become
Ambassador Baucus and assume one of our Nation's most important
diplomatic posts as ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus has played a
central role in some of the most important legislative accomplishments
of recent decades. He has helped bring health care coverage to millions
of Americans by working toward establishment of the Children's Health
Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act. At the same time, he was
worked tirelessly on issues of major importance to Montana, fighting to
support his State's agriculture, and to support important educational
and economic development initiatives.
He moves from this important role to another. Our relationship with
China is more important than ever. Decisions made today will affect
that relationship for decades to come. We are seeking to cement a
positive relationship, one in which China joins with our friends and
allies in the Asia-Pacific Region to support collective security and
economic growth, and fosters stability through adhering to
international norms. As the representative of the American people in
Beijing, Max will be instrumental in getting and keeping the U.S.-China
relationship on a positive footing. He will be in a crucial position to
help open Chinese markets to American goods.
I will miss Max as a friend and a colleague, but I am grateful for
his willingness to take on this job, to continue serving his Nation in
a new and challenging capacity.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Let me begin by thanking so many of my friends here:
Senators Durbin, Carper, Hatch, and so many others. I must say to you,
you have expressed your remarks, and they mean a lot to me. But they
probably mean more to me than I think you know. They mean so much to
me. Thank you for what you have said.
I would also like to begin by thanking the people of Montana. The
people of Montana have given me the honor of representing them in the
Congress for nearly 40 years. It is 39 now, and actually at the end of
this year it will be 40 years. I want to thank President Obama very
much for the opportunity to serve the American people as Ambassador to
China.
I also want to recognize one of the best teammates and friends anyone
could ever ask for, Senator Jon Tester. Thank you, Jon. There is
nothing greater in life than the love of family. I have been an
incredibly lucky man. I would like to thank my wife Mel, my son Zeno,
his wife Stephanie. I would also to thank our children, Katie and Joey.
Mel, Zeno, Stephanie, Katie, and Joey, you inspire me daily. I am so
grateful for each of you. I am so blessed to have Mel in my life. Her
energy, her zest for life, her positive outlook, and her love have
transformed me. I am the luckiest guy in the world because of Mel.
Katie and Joey are clearly inspired by their mother. They are great
kids, great achievers. I think the last grades I saw--one is in law
school and the other is in college--they had all As. Why? Because they
are inspired by their mother. That is why they do so well, in the best
sense of the term.
My son Zeno is one of the best kids parents could ever wish for. I am
so proud of him. He is so smart, intelligent, and decent. He is
currently an assistant U.S. attorney, living in Helena with his wife
Stephanie. I am proud of him. You may have read about that case where a
lady pushed her husband off a cliff in Glacier Park, MT. He is the
prosecutor in that case.
I am very proud of him. Again, an indication of how proud I am of
him, I learned more about that case reading the papers than I did from
him. He keeps his cards close to his vest and is such a decent, smart,
effective guy.
Stephanie, his wife, has jumped right into life in Montana. She is so
talented and special, and the Helena community is very lucky to have
her.
Thanks so much to my parents Jean and John Baucus. I wish they were
here today.
Growing up on a ranch in Montana, you learn the simple lessons, the
measure of life. You learn to cherish the land. It gets in your blood.
You work hard. It is humbling. There is so much you cannot control
working on a ranch. You cannot control the weather, whether it rains or
it does not rain. You cannot control the prices. It gives you a little
perspective to feel philosophical about life.
On the ranch you are charged also with nurturing life, nurturing
livestock, producing a small part of nature's bounty. You have an
obligation to learn as a rancher.
It is also the Montana way to love the outdoors. We are outdoors
people in Montana. We hunt, we fish, we backpack, we hike, we grow
crops, we raise livestock, we mine coal, and we cut timber. I think
Montanans are more outdoor people than any other people in the country.
We love it. It becomes part of our soul. Montana writer Bud Guthrie
said: ``Somehow I am part of it, a mortal partner to eternity.''
I grew up this way, and it shored up my belief that we all have a
moral obligation to our kids and grandkids when we leave this place, to
leave it in as good a shape or in better shape than we found it. That
internal compass is also a lasting gift from my parents and their love
of the land. My mom is one of the most special persons one could have
the privilege to know. She had the class of Grace Kelly and the spunk
and grit of Katherine Hepburn. She was a combination of them both--an
intelligent, classy lady, always positive, always upbeat. She was so
intelligent and so well read. She even read more books than I did. I
would come home at night and say: Mom, what are you reading?
She would tell me all about the book. One she was reading was
President Obama's second book, which he wrote when he was a Senator.
What do you think about that, mom?

[[Page S798]]

Oh, it is a pretty good book. It has something to say. It is a little
long, though.
Anyway, she wrote a note to the President and told him that she liked
it. He wrote back, and they became pen pals. It was very nice.
Someone asked me last week what my mother would have thought of all
this. She would have been incredibly excited and fascinated with the
adventure ahead. Although I miss her every day--in fact, I talked to
her every day at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That hour goes by daily,
but I keep thinking of her. She is always on my mind, as is my father.
He loaded bombs on airplanes in Europe during World War II. A product
of the Great Depression, he instilled in me the values of hard work,
humility, and good faith. He worked me hard on the ranch, stacked a lot
of hay, a lot of fencing. I know why he did it--for the right reasons.
I did not complain because I knew that he was trying to raise me in the
way that he hoped would help me later in life.
He was also such a decent person. No one ever spoke an ill word of my
father--ever--such a rock solid character. The Republican Party in
Montana asked him to run for Governor. He would not have anything to do
with it. He did not care about that politics stuff. He was a rancher
and liked what he was doing--ranching. I was so blessed to have such
great parents.
Now 52 years ago, I was full of youthful idealism and curiosity about
life beyond the ranch. I am sure it was caused somewhat by my parents.
As a college student at Stanford, I decided to take a year off from my
studies between my junior and senior year. I grabbed a knapsack and I
hitchhiked around the world for 1 year. It was June-August 1962 to
about August-September 1963.
I set out to visit countries I had only imagined--India, Japan, and
China, to name a few. Before I departed, I had never thought about a
life in public service. But that trip opened my eyes. It charted my
course. I realized how people across the globe were interconnected. We
are all in this together.
I saw the indispensable role that America plays as a leader on the
world stage. It was so obvious. I knew right where I was, in the middle
of the then-Belgian Congo, and I had an epiphany. All this realization
hit me that we are so connected, that our natural resources are
diminishing. Somehow we have to work better together if we are going to
have better lives, not only for ourselves but for everyone on the
globe. We are so connected.
The world is getting smaller. Our natural resources, in fact, are
diminishing. We have to find a way to work better together. I returned
home with a commitment to a career where I could improve the lives of
my fellow Montanans and of all Americans. I would not be standing here
today had it not been for that trip where I hitchhiked around the
world, probably the most defining era of my life.
It was by far the most influential, and that 1 year set into motion a
series of opportunities to serve that I would never have dreamed would
take me back to China to represent the United States 50 years later.
When I first ran for statewide office in 1973, no one knew me from
Adam. I had been away from the State for many years.
I needed some advice. I had met Mike Mansfield when I was in high
school. Instantly there was a man I totally respected and honored. He
planted the seed, I know, for later interest in public service. It was
not a defining moment, but I could tell at the time. He told me I
should run; I should go back home and serve. I was then working at the
SEC, just a short distance from here.
If I wanted to run for Congress, he said, it would take a lot of hard
work, a lot of shoe leather, and a little bit of luck. I took his
advice literally. I wore out as much shoe leather as I knew how. I
walked the entire length of the State of Montana from Gardiner in the
south--Gardiner is next to Yellowstone Park--up to the Yaak, a remote
part of Montana near the Canadian border.
I got to know so many great people who later put me to work for them
in the House. It was right in the middle of the Watergate political
scandal. I joined a congressional class determined to restore good
faith and trust in government, a terrific bunch of folks. They were
just great, the ``Watergate class.''
I think of my friends Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, Paul Simon, Henry
Waxman, and George Miller, to name a few. It was a great class. They
were running for office and serving for the right reasons.
When I hitchhiked around the globe as a young man, I also realized
that no country has a monopoly on religion, culture or virtue. We are
all together. We are all in this together. All people basically have
the same dreams for their families--to put food on the table, to make
ends meet, to take care of the kids, health care they could afford, and
a clean environment for their families to explore and enjoy.
The Senate can make people's dreams a reality. We are so lucky as
Americans to have this institution under our Constitution written by
our very perceptive forefathers. It offers what few institutions in the
world can boast--the opportunity to make a difference when history
calls.
One of the greatest privileges I have had in this job is having one
of the best staffs on the Hill. They are sitting behind me--some of
them. They are terrific. They have always been ready with big ideas and
dedication to answer history's call. If there is a vanguard of vision,
my staff has been in it.
I might say, parenthetically, I am very proud of my staff for another
reason. My office has spawned about six marriages. A woman or a man
working in my office who didn't know each other until they started
working in my office got together and got married--six times--and they
have all worked but for one. I don't know, but maybe I worked them too
hard or maybe not hard enough. Whatever the reason, over the years
after they were married, to see their kids, it has been terrific. It
meant so much to me.
How many people have served since the time I have been here? The
answer is 1,423 folks have worked on behalf of Montanans and on behalf
of Americans, each person making a positive difference to the lives of
others.
I thank them all very much.
In the years I have been in the Senate, we voted to send our sons and
daughters to fight wars overseas, to protect our national security. I
think the strongest human instinct is self-preservation. When you come
from a beautiful place such as Montana, and from the wonderful people
of our State, you will stop at nothing to defend them.
Montana has a tradition of answering the call to serve. As a matter
of fact, more Montanans have volunteered for service per capita than
nearly any state in the Nation.
My own nephew Phillip left college to enlist in the Marines. Before
long he was far away in Anbar province serving our country. I loved
Phillip as a father. His fellow marines looked to him for support,
counsel, advice, and leadership as they faced many firefights. He made
lance corporal in record time. He gave his life to our Nation and then
returned to the family ranch for the very last time.
Phillip, like each one of the fallen heroes who bore our battles,
left behind big dreams undone and countless broken hearts. Dust to
dust--we still shudder.
President Lincoln concluded his second inaugural address with a call
for the Nation to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and
for his widow and his orphan.'' Lincoln's commitment remains our sacred
duty today.
In the Senate we have made progress. We enacted tax credits for
businesses that hire veterans and enacted a new GI bill. In the past 10
years Congress has doubled support for the VA. That is an investment of
which we should be proud. Someone once wrote: ``In war, there are no
unwounded soldiers.'' It is important we remember that. We make the
tough votes to authorize war, and we must also find the courage to band
together so that our troops return to a nation that honors their
service.
Of all the bills that I have worked on, there are two that stand out.
In 2010 we took the Montana National Guard's model of improved PTSD
screening and expanded it nationwide. That concept of very meaningful
PTSD screening began in Montana with the Montana National Guard. It
worked so well I got it in the defense bill, and it is now being
enacted nationwide to make sure we do the very best to protect our kids
who are coming home.
The new screenings have resulted in more than 800,000 servicemembers
who

[[Page S799]]

have received personal and private one-on-one attention from a trained
health care provider--both before and after deployment. Make no
mistake; these screenings are saving lives.
I am also proud of another life-saving bill, the Affordable Care Act.
It has been almost 4 years since President Obama signed that act into
law, and in that time the law has done more than any other in the past
half century to expand access to health coverage. It has provided 71
million Americans free preventive service. More than 6 million seniors
have received discounts on vital prescription drugs.
More than 3 million young people have peace of mind knowing they will
be allowed to stay on their parents' health plans. I am especially
proud that now no child will ever be denied health care coverage
because they had been sick or had a preexisting condition.
It has been a tough road. It has been a challenge I am proud to have
taken on. While the debate over the law continues, I am proud to stand
for it because it is helping millions of Americans.
Take Julie from Helena. Julie wrote to me that she is self-employed
and finally able to get access to affordable, quality health care
coverage because of the ACA.
John, from Missoula, has a daughter who survived ovarian cancer.
Thanks to the ACA, she was able to stay on her parents' insurance and
win her battle against cancer.
I am very proud of the role I played in helping to make health care
more accessible and more affordable to many Americans.
In this Chamber there are brilliant men and women. With great respect
to my colleagues, I insist that, in the most important respect,
Senators are just ordinary people--big, not-so-big, tall, short, men
and women. We are just people.
It is only through the extraordinary institution of the Senate that
the ordinary people have the power to make life better for all
Americans. We belong to something bigger than ourselves. When I first
came to the Senate, Senators from opposing parties actually had lunch
together in the private Senate dining room on the floor below the
Chamber. It was called the inner sanctum.
In those daily rituals we learned about each other's families, home
States, and developed real friendships. Senators dined together--no
spouses, no staff, only Senators from both sides of the aisle. We
compared notes, talked about our kids, and talked about our family. We
talked about legislation, and we got to know each other. It was
wonderful getting to know each other, to build trust, confidence, and
understanding. It was the backbone of respect that we all relied upon.

Those friendships provided a refuge from the political firestorms and
common ground to turn to after the wrangling over the disagreements of
the day.
Now schedules are packed with caucus meetings and political
fundraisers. The Senate is losing the spirit of friendship and
forgiveness that, in the words of Protestant theologian Reinhold
Niebuhr, ``is the final oil of harmony in all human relations and which
rests upon the contrite recognition that our actions and attitudes are
inevitably interpreted in a different light by our friends as well as
foes than we interpret them.''
Friendship and forgiveness, that is the oil of human relations that
brings us together. That private Senate dining room now carries only
the echoes of the friendships once forged at its tables, and we are
poorer for it. Yet there is nothing inevitable about this trend. The
hope of this body lies in individual Senators. The heart set upon
solutions to problems will win over the heart devising traps for
political gain.
It is my honor to have friendships that formed the basis for solving
some of the Nation's most difficult problems. I will never forget
working together with the late Senator John Chafee on the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
I worked with John for years before finding out he was an amazing war
hero, decorated for his service in Korea. He didn't tell us that. It
took years before I learned what a hero he was, a self-effacing kind of
guy. Few people knew about his war record because he didn't brag about
it or use it for political gain. He served because he believed in it,
not because he thought he could benefit from it. Without a doubt, we
need more John Chafees in the world.
Between 1989 and 1990, we sat together in a small room off the Senate
floor, facing wave after wave of unhappy Senators--sometimes until 1 or
2 in the morning. He was the ranking Republican member of the EPW
Committee. I became chairman of the Environmental Protection
Subcommittee.
Together we met with our colleagues ironing out the compromises on
acid rain, ozone depletion, air quality permits, and scores of other
issues. Senator Chafee later became chairman of the full committee. We
had our disagreements, but by-and-large under Senator Chafee's
chairmanship I recall an oasis of civility.
That friendship helped us to pass the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. I am very proud of that effort. I was chairman of the committee
at that time, and we finally got it.
It is a small point, but I always respected that he never raised his
voice. He was always civil, always decent, always positive, upbeat, and
trying to find a solution. John never lost his temper. He listened
carefully to the other person's point of view.
He was a paragon of the Senate--as is my good friend from Iowa Chuck
Grassley.
Chuck and I began our friendship by deciding to meet weekly face-to-
face in his office or my office. It turned out to be 5:30 p.m. every
Tuesday. We would bring our staffs together. Pretty soon our staffs
were talking to each other. The health care staff after a while started
talking to each other and our trade staff started talking to each
other.
Heck, we were basically one office. If you were a fly on the wall,
you would think this was one office where people were trying to get
together to solve problems.
Chuck is a Republican; I am a Democrat. We have differences, but our
goal is to solve the problems and find solutions while adhering to our
principles.
Our friendship led to a culture of respect and honesty in the Senate
Finance Committee that helped us pass important agreements of other
bills to expand trading opportunities with the rest of the world. I am
especially proud of our work together to successfully shepherd the
Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Senator Carper referred to it just
a short while ago.
I thank my good friend Dave Camp. Dave is chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee. We have worked together a lot over the past couple
of years on tax reform. We have bridged the partisan divide to help
pass the most recent highway bill and the payroll tax cut. Dave is a
super, super American and a wonderful man. I am very lucky to have him
as a friend.
It has also been a terrific honor working with my good friend Senator
Orrin Hatch.
Orrin, Dave, and I recently worked together to introduce Trade
Promotion Authority legislation to make Congress a full partner in
trade negotiations. In trade, as in so many important areas, working
together is the only way to get the job done. The Senator is a real
American--Orrin Hatch. He is the salt of Utah and cares about his State
and his country. The Senator is a wonderful person to work with. I
can't thank him enough.
Thank you, Senator Hatch.
In 1961, President-elect John F. Kennedy said: ``Our governments, in
every branch, at every level, national, State, and local, must be as a
city on a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great
trust and their great responsibilities.
If we are indeed a city on the Hill, it rests firmly on the bridges
that Senators built when they faced even the deepest of divides. I
mention my closest friendships across the aisle because it is those
bridges that we lack the most today.
The epiphany I had as a young man hitchhiking around the world 52
years ago I believe is even more relevant today. Advances in
technologies and communications have made us more interconnected as
people than ever before.
The challenges of globalization bind us even more. Climate change--we
are all in this together--terrorism, economic development, and
education can

[[Page S800]]

all be addressed with good faith and a commitment to finding common
ground.
I am committed in my next chapter to meet these challenges. The
United States-China relationship I believe is one of the most important
bilateral relationships in the world that will shape global affairs for
generations. We must get it right.
Thirty-eight years ago, Mike Mansfield said farewell to this
institution by simply declaring: ``There is a time to stay and a time
to go.''
Now, as I face my own crossroads, I am humbled to have the
opportunity to follow in his footsteps.
As America's ambassador to Japan, Mansfield worked hard to strengthen
and improve America's relationship throughout history. I will try to do
the same.
Many of you know I love to run. I actually have my eye on the Beijing
Marathon--but, to be more honest, maybe I will scale it down to a half-
marathon, something a little shorter. When I think about my next
endeavor, I am reminded of something a professional runner, Paul
Tergat, once said:

Ask yourself: ``Can I give more?'' The answer is usually:
Yes.

I can give more; we all can. I thank President Obama for asking me. I
am indeed energized to serve America in this new role and to look at
this as my sprint to the finish.
I trust Montanans to choose wisely as they have so well with my
friend, the great Senator from Montana Jon Tester.
My final message is not for my esteemed peers but for the young
people chasing their dreams across the Montana Hi-Line, searching for
meaning through the Yellowstone River Valley or climbing toward their
future along the Rocky Mountain Front.
The headlines paint the picture that there is no honor in public
service. I disagree. I think the greatest noble human endeavor is
service--service to friends, service to family, to church, to
synagogue. Public service. The most noble human endeavor is service. So
I urge you young folks to take up that challenge that politics is not
an honorable profession. It is more than honorable. It is an obligation
to serve. And I urge you to follow and serve. Choose to serve others.
For me, it has been the honor of a lifetime. I am so lucky. And be
ready--because history is calling.
It is with deep gratitude and respect that I say for the last time,
with full faith in the highest forms of the Senate, I yield the floor.
But before doing so, I just have to say I am not going anywhere. I am
just taking a trip, maybe for a year or two, across the Pacific--just a
trip. I will be coming back because we all are together on different
journeys that we take.
I thank all of you, my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I would like
to make a few comments about Senator Baucus.
Our part of the world has sent to the Senate some of our most
distinguished and thoughtful Members. The great Pacific Northwest sent
Wayne Morse from my home State to the Senate and Warren Magnuson and
Scoop Jackson of Washington State. I note that Senator Cantwell is
here. Frank Church of Idaho was sent to Washington, and, of course,
Mike Mansfield, Senator Baucus's mentor and pioneer in terms of
promoting closer relations between our country and Asia. It is very
fitting that this afternoon Max Baucus joins that very special group of
Senators from our part of the United States.
Second, I wish to caution Senators on one point, and the
distinguished Senator from Utah and I have had a little bit of a laugh
about this. Max is exceptionally friendly, and he always tells
Senators: Our paths are going to cross again. I look forward to working
with you in the days ahead. And Senator Hatch and I just want everyone
here in the Senate: However close you are to Senator Baucus, that
doesn't mean every Senator can insist that Max come back from China to
talk about the latest twist in the debate about currency manipulation
or some other issue.
The last point I want to mention is a personal one. When you are here
in the Senate for more than three decades, you deal with scores of
bills and amendments, and you talk about coalitions that were built to
pass measures that needed to be passed, and from time to time you have
to build a coalition to stop something that shouldn't be passed. But
what I want to do--out of those thousands of bills and thousands of
amendments--is talk about a special Baucus commitment that was
especially important to me; that is, the needs of senior citizens.
Max Baucus had some particularly celebrated wins in the fight for
seniors--something in which the Presiding Officer of the Senate is very
involved. The reality is that the person who did more to stop the
privatization of Social Security here on the floor of the Senate was
Max Baucus. He was the one who led the coalition. He reached out to
Senators on both sides and said: Look, of course we need to save more
for private retirement savings, but we are going to do that on top of
Social Security, not as a replacement for Social Security. So Senator
Baucus was there building that coalition, making the case for why this
special program, this intergenerational program has been so important
for our country.
What I remember best about Senator Baucus and seniors, though, is
when the Finance Committee blew the whistle on some of these ripoffs in
supplements sold to older people, and eventually these supplements
really became the delivery system for Medicare as we know it in much of
the country. Senator Cantwell and I, of course, know of the Medicare
Advantage Program.
We would have hearings in the Finance Committee where we would hear
about efforts in the private sector to sell health insurance to seniors
that was not worth the paper on which it was written. I remember--kind
of bringing my Gray Panther roots into the cause--talking to Max about
this change and that change, and it would get pretty dense pretty
quickly. Max just said: This is wrong. This is wrong, to rip senior
citizens off this way. And we were able to get those changes. The
consumer protections Max Baucus locked into the law for the Nation's
vulnerable seniors essentially remain the protections of today that are
used as the model for senior rights.
Senator Cantwell and I, since we are both on the committee, also know
that in the budget discussions, when it came time for hard choices, Max
always made it a priority to stand up for what are known as the dual
eligibles--the seniors who are the most vulnerable, the seniors who
don't have political action committees and don't have clout and can't
participate in all of what we normally think of as today's politics,
from fundraising to all of the grassroots work.
I will close by saying that when you see somebody week in and week
out stand for the most vulnerable people in society, such as those dual
eligibles, you learn a lot about what a person feels strongly about,
what values are important to them. So I want to close by saying that
when we talk about the Senators from our part of the world--and Senator
Cantwell remembers so well the legendary Warren Magnuson and Scoop
Jackson and Frank Church, who, by the way, was chair of the Senate
Select Committee on Aging. I met him for the first time when I was
director of the Gray Panthers and had a full head of hair and good
looks. Max was always on those issues, year after year after year.
I hope today, as we reflect on his contributions and certainly all
the bills and amendments he offered in the Senate Finance Committee,
people will also remember that there is a reason Max belongs with those
distinguished Senators I mentioned from the Pacific Northwest. It is
because he had a heart for people, he had a heart for seniors, and he
had the values that represent the best in public service.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I too come to the floor to say goodbye
to our colleague from Montana and wish him well in his new endeavor as
Ambassador to China--something the Pacific Northwest cares dearly
about. So I know we will be working with him in his new capacity, but
it really is a very historic moment for all of us and certainly for
those of us in the Pacific Northwest.
I will never forget Max and I riding back to our offices on the
subway once

[[Page S801]]

and talking about the Inland Empire. I think people thought we were
making something up, but that is how we refer to our part of the
country and the interior, which is this huge economy that is built on
agriculture, built on trade, built on natural resources that we hold so
dear and for which we fight.
To come to the Senate and to sit in the seat Scoop Jackson once held
and think about how you will have the wherewithal and ability to
remember all of what Scoop and Maggie and everybody fought for and to
know the incarnation of that is right there in Max Baucus, the person
who worked with them, who saw them, and who then carried that torch on
these important policy issues, to me, is so important to recognize
today because he really is a legislator in the mold of Magnuson and
Jackson.
I thank Max for one thing in particular; that is, doing deals. Around
here people sometimes criticize doing deals. But you know what. The art
of compromise and moving our country forward requires that, and Max
became a model dealmaker in the context of these important policies on
which we have worked, whether the modernization of the trade
legislation for dislocated workers and expanding that program and
making it more robust because it needed to be modernized or whether
some of the changes we have made to CHIP, because I can tell you he
certainly helped us in Washington State in making sure we had our fair
share as regards the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Just speaking about CHIP in general, I can't say enough about CHIP as
a program. When you get discouraged around here about what we are
actually getting done or what problems we are solving, if you think of
nothing else but CHIP--just the Children's Health Insurance Program--
and literally giving health insurance to millions of children across
America who wouldn't automatically get health insurance, this job is
worth it right here and now. So I thank Max for that.
Certainly on the Affordable Care Act I have often said that Max
applied his marathon skills to the patience of Job in actually crafting
that legislation. I think we probably worked every day for 2 years in
committee to make that legislation a reality, and it took a lot of
patience. Many times late at night I would have lost my patience with
the process and our colleagues, but Max didn't, and the end result is
that this country is moving forward on a major health care policy that
I know 30 or 40 years from now will be in the same category as our
other key programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as a
foundation and as a base of what we are doing to make sure people have
affordable health care in this country.
Max, I thank you for the staff you hired as well because in the
Finance Committee, while we didn't always agree on every single policy,
they also came to the table ready to make things happen, and I
certainly appreciate that.
To my colleagues, I feel as though we really are losing a piece of
our institution today and somebody who really understood the issues
that I care about in the Pacific Northwest and somebody who really knew
how to make things happen. I know our path forward is a new course on
the Finance Committee, but I hope we will continue in the way that Max
brought forth issues because in the end it is about improving the lives
of the people we represent, and that means we are not always going to
agree, but we are going to have to put ideas on the table and we are
going to have to get them passed into law.
So, Max, as you go across the big Pacific, I know you will remember
us, but we will be looking to you too because there is a lot we have to
get done. I know that as you are running around Beijing, you will have
that little app they now have that shows the level of pollution in
Beijing that comes right off the U.S. Embassy, and you will be talking
to the Chinese about how we have to work together on a clean energy
strategy, and we will applaud you for that. But don't forget all of us
here because there is a lot of work to be done. We are very proud to
call you a former colleague and a key leader in the history of the
Inland Empire. Thank you very much, Max.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

ObamaCare

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this past Sunday before the Super Bowl,
President Obama sat down for an interview.
The President was asked about the failure of his healthcare.gov Web
site. He talked about how there are always glitches with technology.
But then he said this about the Web site:

It got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and
running and now it's working the way it's supposed to.

According to the President of the United States, healthcare.gov is
now ``working the way it's supposed to.'' The President of the United
States is in denial.
This is an incredible statement that he has made. I find it
especially hard to believe, when I looked at the Washington Post the
next morning--on Monday, the day after the President's interview where
he said ``it's working the way it's supposed to.''
Then look at the headline on the front page of the Washington Post on
Monday, ``Health site can't handle appeals.'' Thousands of requests for
fixes were filed but unprocessed.
Is this what the President of the United States means when he says
now ``it's working the way it's supposed to?'' Is the President
oblivious to what is happening in this country with his signature piece
of legislation? According to this article:

Tens of thousands of people who discovered that
HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a
health care plan are confronting a new roadblock: The
government cannot yet fix the errors.

The President may think it is perfect, but there are a lot of errors
with his Web site. To say it is working the way it is supposed to, to
me, cites Presidential denial.
``About 22,000 Americans,'' the article says. Is this what President
Obama means when he says the Web site is working ``the way it's
supposed to''? I am talking about the front page of the Washington
Post, above the fold. One woman quoted in the article says that because
of a mistake by the Web site, she is paying $100 a month more than she
should and her deductible is $4,000 too high. She said she needed the
insurance, and now she is stuck.
Is this what President Obama thought the Web site was supposed to do?
Was it supposed to overcharge this woman $100 a month and set her
deductible too high by $4,000? Was it supposed to prevent her from
appealing that mistake?
You are stuck with it. The mistake was made by the Web site. You are
stuck. This is what the President seems to think.
Here is another headline which ran on Monday, the day after the
President's interview. This was in the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska.
It says, ``Enroll Alaska mistakenly releases hundreds of e-mail
addresses.''
Alaska is one of the States which doesn't use their own exchange.
They are part of the Federal exchange which uses healthcare.gov.
The article says:

Enroll Alaska mistakenly released about 300 email addresses
Monday afternoon when an employee sent out a mass message
about a healthcare.gov glitch without masking its recipients.

So, No. 1, there was a glitch. Remember, the President says now
``it's working the way it's supposed to.'' So there was a glitch; they
sent out an email explaining the glitch, and they end up releasing all
of the people's personal email addresses when they are trying to point
out to the incompetence of the Web site in the first place. Is this the
way President Obama thinks things are supposed to work with his Web
site?
This is the kind of security issue many of us have been worried about
from the beginning. People have to provide a lot of their personal
information in this Web site--financial information, health
information, Social Security number, demographic information. There is
not enough assurance the information is being properly protected.
So this time they sent out people's email addresses. Maybe next time
they

[[Page S802]]

will send out people's Social Security numbers, their health
information, their financial information or other personal information.
That is not even talking about the lack of security on the Web site
and whether hackers can break in and steal information. This is just
human error, carelessness, and what people connected to the site are
sending out by mistake. It is a very real concern.
For the President to not take this seriously--and I believe he
doesn't take it seriously. I believe he has his head in the sand on all
of this, and he has dug in on this law. For the President to not take
this seriously and say that everything is going ``the way it's supposed
to'' is a very real problem with the man in the White House.
That is just the Web site. That is what the President was talking
about in the interview. What else about the health care law is working
the way it is supposed to, I ask the Presiding Officer.
Is it the millions of people who will be dropping out of the labor
force because of the law? On Tuesday morning, the Congressional Budget
Office said that is exactly what is going to happen.
Here is how the papers reported it:
The New York Times, ``Health Care Law Projected to Cut the Labor
Force.''
The Wall Street Journal, ``Health Law to Cut Into Labor Force.''
Here is how The Hill put it, ``ObamaCare will cost 2.5M workers by
2024.''
Is this the way the Obama administration thinks its health care law
is supposed to work? They are actually saying, yes, it is. Jason
Furman, the President's top economist, said the health care law ``is
helping labor markets, is helping businesses, and is helping jobs.''
Helping labor markets?
Because of the failed policies of the Obama administration, we have
the lowest labor force participation rate in 35 years. People have
given up looking for work. The administration should be doing all it
can to increase the labor force participation, not celebrating that its
health care law is going to push that number even lower.
Middle-class Americans all across this country have seen their
insurance premiums go up significantly because of the health care law's
costly mandates. They have seen their deductibles go up. Millions of
hard-working Americans have had their insurance policies canceled. Why?
Because of the law.
Now we are seeing people's personal information put at risk and we
are seeing the damage the law is doing to the labor force.
President Obama says, ``It's working just the way it's supposed to.''
The President is wrong. The Web site is not working and his health care
law isn't working. It is not working for the American people.
The Web site is just the tip of the iceberg. People are finding they
can't keep their insurance even if they like it. The front page story
today of the Wall Street Journal: It is harder to keep your doctor,
even if you want to keep your doctor, in spite of the President's
promise.
We have millions who have had their policies canceled, others losing
their doctors. We have seen premium costs go up, we have seen
deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses go up and the issue of security
fraud.
The Web site is a problem. The Web site failure is just a tip of the
iceberg. It is time to get rid of this terrible health care law and
replace it with real reform before it does additional damage to
America's labor force and to the American people.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iran

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about one
of our greatest national security challenges, which is a nuclear-armed
Iran. I have long thought of it as a bipartisan national security
issue, not a partisan political issue. At the end of the day, it is a
national security issue we must approach in the spirit of
bipartisanship and unity, which has been the spirit for which we have
worked together on this matter. I hope we will not find ourselves in a
partisan process trying to force a vote on a national security matter
before its appropriate time.
Let me say at the outset that I support the administration's
diplomatic efforts. I have always supported a two-track policy of
diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, I am convinced that we
should only relieve pressure on Iran in exchange for verifiable
concessions that will dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Our success
should be measured in years, not months, and that it be done in such a
way that alarm bells will sound from Vienna to Washington should Iran
restart its program anytime in the next 20 to 30 years.
I am here to unequivocally state my intention as chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee to make absolutely certain that any deal we
may reach with Iran is verifiable, effective, and prevents them from
ever developing even one nuclear weapon.
Let's remember that while we in the Senate are not at the negotiating
table, we have a tremendous stake in the outcome and an obligation, as
a separate coequal branch of government representing the American
people, to provide oversight and an expression of what we expect as to
what the end result would be. But it is the administration that is at
the negotiating table with the Iranians, not us. The administration is
ultimately responsible for negotiating a deal to conclusively end
Iran's illicit nuclear program. It is the administration that will have
to come back to Congress and tell us whether Iran will continue to be a
nuclear threshold state.
My sincere desire is for the administration to succeed. No one has
worked harder for a peaceful outcome or to get Iran to comply with
sanctions than I have. But based on the parameters described in the
Joint Plan of Action and Iranian comments in the days that have
followed, I am very concerned. This is not a ``nothing ventured,
nothing gained'' enterprise. We have placed our incredibly effective
international sanctions regime on the line without clearly defining the
parameters of what we expect in a final agreement.
Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's nuclear agency, spoke last month
about the agreement on Iranian state television and said:

The iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges
are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.

Well, it is my greatest fear.
Any final deal must require Iran to dismantle large portions of its
illicit nuclear program. Any final deal must require Iran to halt its
advanced centrifuge and research and development activities, reduce the
vast majority of its 20,000 centrifuges, close the Fordo facility, stop
the heavy-water reactor at Arak from ever possibly coming online, and
it should require Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear activities,
including its weaponization activities. For the good of the region and
the world, Iran cannot remain a nuclear weapon threshold state, period.
A final agreement should move back the timeline for a nuclear
breakout capability to beyond a year and insist on a long-term, 20-
year-plus monitoring and verification agreement. That is the only way
to force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons aspirations. Anything else
will leave Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear state while it
rebuilds its economy and improves its ability to break out at a future
day.
David Albright, a respected former International Atomic Energy Agency
inspector, said that for Iran to move from an interim to a final
agreement, it would have to close the Fordo facility and remove between
15,000 and 16,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. In testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had a long list of elements that
he thinks are critical toward a final agreement.
However, even after such dramatic steps, we are looking at a breakout
time of between 6 and 8 months--depending on whether Iran has access to
just 3.5 percent enriched uranium or access to 20 percent enriched
uranium. Dennis Ross, one of America's preeminent diplomats and foreign
policy analysts who has served Republican and Democratic Presidents
alike, has said Iran should retain no more than 10

[[Page S803]]

percent of its centrifuges, which is, in essence, no more than 2,000.
These estimates are crucial because at the end of the day we in this
body will have to decide whether this is enough to merit terminating
sanctions. Is a 6-month delay in Iran's breakout ability enough, even
when combined with a robust 20-year inspection and verification
regime--understanding that in allowing Iran to retain its enrichment
capabilities, there will always be a risk of breakout. It may be that
this is the only deal we can get. The real question is whether it is a
good enough deal to merit terminating sanctions.
My concern is that the Joint Plan of Action does not speak to these
recommended centrifuge limitations Dennis Ross or Dr. Albright
suggests. In fact, Iran has already made its views about the
limitations of the agreement quite clear. What the Joint Plan of Action
does concede is that Iran will not only retain its ability to enrich
but will be allowed a mutually agreed upon enrichment program.
Here is what Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif said about the interim
agreement:

The White House tries to portray it as basically a
dismantling of Iran's nuclear program . . . we are not
dismantling any centrifuges, we are not dismantling any
equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5
percent.

That is a quote from their Foreign Minister.
What does President Ruhani of Iran say? He was adamant in an
interview on CNN in saying that Iran will not be dismantling its
centrifuges. He said:

We are determined to provide for the nuclear fuel of such
plants inside the country, at the hands of local Iranian
scientists. We are going to follow on this path.

On that program, Fareed Zakaria asked him:

So there will be no destruction of centrifuges, of existing
centrifuges.

President Ruhani said:

No. No, not at all.

In fact, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran
would comply with the interim agreement by removing the connections
between networks of centrifuges that have been used to enrich uranium
to 20 percent so they can enrich only to 5 percent. Then he said:

These interconnections can be removed in a day and
connected again in a day.

That is not the type of safeguard we need. Clearly, their intention--
at least in these negotiations--is to retain their capability
notwithstanding the agreement. That is pretty clear to me.
In January President Ruhani tweeted:

Our relationship with the world is based on Iranian
nation's interest. In Geneva agreement world powers
surrendered to Iranian nation's will.
When this tweet was broadly reported on, President Rouhani took it
down. In a speech when Rouhani was leaving his post as Iran's chief
negotiator in 2005, he said:

While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were
installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan--
which is a uranium conversion facility--

which is a uranium conversion facility--

but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. In
fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to
complete the work on Isfahan.

In essence, they were able to complete the work of the uranium
conversion.
Now, sometimes I think it is worthy to listen to the words of these
individuals now in leadership positions to understand the mindset of
the negotiations that are taking place. Basically, what President
Rouhani was saying is that he was able to get the West to not pursue
sanctions and ultimately to not take any other action, as Iran
continued to march forward with its nuclear program. I find comments
such as that deeply troubling. I find troubling the fact that even
after an agreement was reached in November, the Iranians reportedly
fired a rocket into space to improve their ability to develop a long-
range ballistic missile system.
In an interview with Reuters, U.S. missile defense expert Rikki
Ellison said of the report:

If it's true, they continue to expand and grow their long
range missile capabilities regardless of their overture to
the West with self-reduction of their nuclear capabilities .
. .

These realities--these statements, these actions--are just as much
about the spirit of the interim deal as it is about the letter of the
deal, and it places in question the political will of the Iranians and
our ability to reach a verifiable agreement with those who have been
willing to so deceive.
In terms of both Iran's political will and its ballistic missile
capability, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, said
the following:

Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas--
including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic
missiles--from which it could draw if it decided to build
missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These technical
advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the
scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually
produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its
political will to do so.

So what the analysis reveals is that years of obfuscation, delay, and
endless negotiation has brought the Iranians to the point of having,
according to the Director of National Intelligence, the scientific,
technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear
weapons. As to their will to do so, I would say that if they are--I
would say that what they are hiding at the Parchin Military Industrial
Complex, if revealed, would clearly show their will to build a nuclear
bomb. The only thing that has thwarted that will is crippling
sanctions. The Iranians have fought back every step of the way with the
international community getting access to Parchin, and the world
largely views Parchin as the place in which their militarization of
nuclear energy--therefore nuclear weapons--was taking place. In my
view, the Iranians are negotiating in bad faith, as we have seen them
do in the past. They say one thing behind closed doors in Geneva and
say another thing publicly. I know the administration will say this is
what President Rouhani needs to do for his domestic audience.
But his deeds need to go beyond his words, and they need to be
verifiable. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, David Albright, of
the Institute of Science and International Security and an expert on
the proliferation of atomic weapons, said that under the interim
agreement:

The breakout times, if Iran used its currently installed
centrifuges, would lengthen from at least 1 to 1.6 months to
at least 1.9 to 2.2 months.

That effectively means that without dismantling currently installed
centrifuges, Iran has a breakout time of 6 to 8 weeks, unless we demand
real consequences in a final agreement--6 to 8 weeks. That figure is
going to be very important, as I will get to later, because 6 to 8
weeks is a lot shorter than the time frame to invoke and make sanctions
effective.
Another major concern is the Arak heavy water reactor--a facility
that Dennis Ross has described as ``grossly inefficient for producing
electricity, but not for generating plutonium for nuclear weapons.''
The Senate was told that this facility would be taken care of in the
final agreement, which most of us understood to mean that it would be
dismantled. Now, the Joint Plan of Action and the implementing
agreement suggest something less than dismantlement. The implementing
agreement says that Iran has to ``take steps to agree with the IAEA on
the conclusion of a safeguards approach to Arak.'' Iran has not
provided required design information for Arak, as we thought was going
to happen, and in the final agreement it seems possible that either
Iran will be allowed to complete the reactor and operate it under IAEA
safeguards or the reactor will simply be mothballed--not dismantled but
mothballed--or perhaps converted to a light-water facility that carries
its own risks.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister has said that the Arak reactor is the
fastest way to get the material for a nuclear weapon. So while I
understand the agreement also does not permit Iran to construct a
related reprocessing facility at this time, the implication of the
agreement's language is that the final agreement will not actually
require the dismantling of the Arak reactor, meaning that Arak could,
at a future date, give Iran a relatively quick path to a weapon, and I
find that simply unacceptable.
In my view, Iran's strategy, consistent with their past approaches
that

[[Page S804]]

have brought them to a nuclear threshold state, is to use these
negotiations to mothball its nuclear infrastructure program just long
enough to undo the international sanctions regime.
Iran is insisting on keeping core elements of its programs--
enrichment, the Arak heavy-water reactor, the underground Fordow
facility, and the Parchin military complex. While they may be subject
to safeguards so they can satisfy the international community in the
short run, if they are allowed to retain their core infrastructure,
they could quickly revive their program sometime in the future. At the
same time, Iran is seeking to reverse the harsh international sanctions
regime against them.

The bottom line is this. If they get their way, if they dismantle
nothing, we gut the sanctions, and troubling signs have already
appeared.
Since the interim deal was signed, there was an immediate effort by
many nations--including many European nations--to revive trade and
resume business with Iran. There have been recent headlines that the
Russians may be seeking a barter deal that could increase Iran's oil
exports by 50 percent; that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-
goods deal worth $1.5 billion a month--$18 billion a year--which would
significantly boost Iran's oil exports by 500,000 barrels a day in
exchange for Russian goods.
To the administration's credit, when we have raised this issue, they
have said they are aware of those concerns and have told the Russians
that, in fact, if they were to pursue that, it would be actionable,
meaning it would be subject to sanctions. But I am not sure that
Vladimir Putin really is going to be thwarted by such warnings.
A coalition of France's largest companies is already visiting Tehran.
Iran welcomed more than 100 executives from France's biggest firms on
Monday, the most senior French trade mission in years. Since November
there have been 20-plus trade delegations from Turkey, Georgia,
Ireland, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, China, Italy, India, Austria, and Sweden.
What is the result? Iran's economy is recovering. The Iranian rial,
which is in essence their dollar, had plummeted from an official rate
of 10,440 rials to the dollar to a staggering 41,000 to a dollar in
October of 2012. But it has begun to recover. As of January 29, that
rate has gone from 41,000 to a single dollar to 25,000 rials to the
dollar.
International Monetary Fund figures also show Iran's negative growth
turning around, with Iran having a projected growth rate of 1.28
percent to almost 2 percent in 2014 and 2015.
As Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee this week, the $7 billion in actual relief Iran will
definitively receive under the Joint Plan of Action is very
significant--comprising approximately 35 percent of Iran's fully
accessible cash reserves, which are estimated to be $20 billion.
So while the Iranian economy is described as being much larger, the
assessment that this is a drop in the bucket is simply not accurate.
Moreover, that relief fails to consider the $4 billion to $5 billion in
revenue that Iran would have lost if we had not suspended sanctions on
Iran's crude oil exports as required under existing law. Sanctions
relief, combined with the ``open for business'' sign that Iran is
posting, is paying returns. It seems to me the sanctions regime we have
worked so hard to build is starting to unravel before we ever get a
chance to conclude a final agreement with Iran.
The fact is that any final deal as inadequate as the one I have
outlined will end any pressure on Iran for the foreseeable future. Put
simply, we need a policy that guarantees Iran does not acquire nuclear
weapons capability, period.
To understand how to proceed, we must also understand the facts. We
need to put the negotiating into context. First, Iran has a history of
duplicity with respect to its nuclear program, using past negotiations
to cover up advances in its nuclear program, and, most startling, at
the undeclared Fordow enrichment site, buried very deep in a mountain
to prevent its discovery and protect against destruction. That begs the
question: Why would they bury a facility so deep so that it could not
be discovered if it was solely for the peaceful purposes they claim? It
seems unlikely, as Iran's leaders have made clear in recent days, that
Iran will make any concessions that fundamentally dismantle its nuclear
program.
The fact is Iran is simply agreeing to lock the door on its nuclear
weapons program, as is, and walk away. Should they later walk away from
the deal as they have in the past, they can simply unlock the door and
continue their nuclear weapons program from where they are today. It
sounds a lot like North Korea.
Let's not forget that President Rouhani, as the former negotiator for
Iran, boasted:

The day that we invited the three European ministers to the
talks, only 10 centrifuges were spinning at Natanz. We could
not produce one gram of U4 or U6. We did not have the heavy
water production. We could not produce yellow cake . . . Our
total production of centrifuges inside the country was 150 .
. . We wanted to complete all of these--we needed time. We
did not stop. We completed the program.

So 150 then; 20,000 today. The simple truth is he admitted to
deceiving the West.
Given President Rouhani's own words on his country's nuclear weapons
ambition, it seems to me a good deal is not one that equates
dismantling with mothballing. A good deal would prevent Iran from being
able to get back to work on its nuclear weapons program from where it
left off.
Second, despite diplomatic entreaties to the Iranians in recent years
where hands were extended and secret talks were pursued, Iran has grown
its support and advocacy for terror.
The history of Iranian terror against U.S. citizens and interests is
lengthy and robust, grounded in the view that the United States is the
great Satan, and with its funding and support of Hezbollah that has
carried out attacks against American interests. Colleagues will recall
that 241 American servicemen died in the 1983 Marine Corps barracks in
Lebanon and 19 in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In recent
years, we have traced responsibility for lethal actions against
American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, as well as the
fortunately thwarted attack on the Saudi ambassador at a Washington
restaurant in 2011.
Today Iran is actively sponsoring a proxy war in Syria, sending
money, weapons, and fighters on a weekly basis.
Simultaneously, it is sponsoring attacks against Sunnis in Iraq and
promoting regional sectarian violence that could easily result in a
broader regional conflict. So while smiling at our negotiators across
the table, they are simultaneously plotting in the backroom.
With all this in mind, I believe in the wisdom of the prospective
sanctions I proposed. I believe in the lessons of history that tell us
Iran cannot be trusted to live up to its word without external
pressure, and I believe an insurance policy that guards against Iranian
obfuscation and deception is the best way forward.
I know there is a difference of view, but I truly believe that what
got Iran to the negotiating table is the only element of peaceful
diplomacy that can keep it there and ultimately drive a successful
negotiation.
My legislation, cosponsored by 59 Senators, would simply require that
Iran act in good faith, adhering to the implementing agreement, not
engaging in new acts of terror against American citizens or U.S.
property, and not conducting new ballistic missile tests with a range
beyond 500 kilometers.
The legislation is not the problem and Congress is not the problem.
Iran is the problem. We need to worry more about Iran than we need to
worry about the Congress. We need to focus on Iran's long history of
deceptions surrounding its nuclear program and how this should inform
our approach to reaching a comprehensive deal.
To those who believe if negotiations do not result in a deal or if
Iran breaks the deal we can always impose new sanctions, then let me be
clear: If negotiations fail or if Iran breaks the deal, we will not
have time to pass new sanctions that would have a real consequence.
New sanctions are not a spigot that can be turned off and on, as has
been suggested. Even if Congress were to take up and pass new sanctions
at the

[[Page S805]]

moment of Iran's first breach of the Joint Plan of Action or if they do
not reach an ultimate agreement that is acceptable, there is a lag time
of at least 6 months to bring those sanctions online and at least 1
year for real impact to be felt.
That has been our history here. I authored most of these, and they
need a lead time. You need to give countries and companies the time to
be noticed as to what is going to be sanctioned so they can rearrange
their engagements. Then you have to have the regulations to go through
and then you have to have the enforcement take place.
This would bring us beyond the very short time Iran would need to
build a nuclear bomb, especially since the interim agreement does not
require them either to dismantle anything and basically freezes their
capability as it stands today. So let everyone understand, if there is
no deal, I do not think we are going to have the time to impose new
sanctions before Iran can produce a nuclear weapon.
Everyone agrees the comprehensive sanctions policy against Iran--
which was led by Congress and originally opposed by the
administration--has been an unquestionable success. Iran's oil exports
fell to 1.1 million barrels a day in the first 9 months of 2013, down
from 1.5 million barrels in 2012. The fall in exports was costing Iran
between $4 billion and $8 billion a month in 2013, and the loss of oil
revenue had caused the rial to lose two-thirds of its value against the
dollar and caused inflation to rise to more than 40 percent.
There is no dispute or disagreement that it was the economic impact
of sanctions that has brought Iran to the negotiating table in the
first place. But passing those sanctions and having them in place long
enough to be effective took time--time that I am concerned we no longer
have.
The question now is whether our goals align. Has the ideology of the
regime altered so substantially in the last 6 months that they are
ready to forswear a 20-year effort--a 20-year effort--to develop
nuclear weapons or are they, as the Supreme Leader has stated, seeking
to beat us at the game of diplomacy--``to negotiate with the Devil to
eliminate its evil''--and retain their nuclear threshold and enriching
abilities while degrading the sanctions regime?
Let's not forget it is the Ayatollah--I know we are placing a lot of
faith in President Ruhani and the Iranian Foreign Minister--but it is
the Ayatollah who holds the nuclear portfolio, and his main goal is
what. Preservation of the regime. It is the Ayatollah who gave the
green light to Ruhani to negotiate. Why? Because the sanctions were
causing the Ayatollah to be concerned about regime change taking place
within Iranian society due to the consequences of sanctions on the
Iranian economy.
Interestingly enough, who benefits from the sanctions relief? The
Ayatollah. In a Reuters story with the title ``Khamenei's business
empire gains from Iran sanctions relief,'' it goes on to talk about
that:

Khamenei controls a massive business empire known as Setad
that has invested in Iran's petrochemical industry, which is
now permitted to resume [its] exports.

It also states:

In an interview with Reuters this week, a Treasury
Department official estimated that Iran would generate at
most $1 billion in revenue--

Mr. President, $1 billion in revenue--

from petrochemical exports over the next six months.

Who is the one who has a great deal of interest in the petrochemical
section? The Ayatollah, by his control of Setad.
I have worked on Iran's nuclear issues for 20 years, starting when I
was a Member of the House, pressing for sanctions to prevent Iran from
building the Bushehr nuclear powerplant and to halt IAEA support for
their uranium mining and enrichment programs.
For a decade I was told my concerns had no legitimate basis; that
Iran would never be able to bring the Bushehr plant online; and that
Iran's activities were not the most major concern.
History has shown us that those assessments about Iran's abilities
and intentions were simply wrong. The fact is Iran's nuclear
aspirations did not materialize overnight. Iran has been slowly,
methodically working up to this moment for decades, and now--if its
capability is mothballed rather than dismantled--they will remain at
the cusp of being a declared nuclear state should they choose to start
again because nothing will have changed if nothing is significantly
dismantled.
Make no mistake. Iran views developing a nuclear capability as
fundamental to its existence. It sees the development of nuclear
weapons as part of a regional hegemonic strategy to make Tehran the
center of power throughout the region.
That is why our allies and partners in the region--and not just
Israelis, but Emiratis and Saudis, among others--are so skeptical and
so concerned. Quite simply, our allies and partners do not trust
Iranian leaders, nor do they believe Iran has any intention of
verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program.
So while I welcome the diplomatic efforts, and I share the hope that
the administration can achieve a final comprehensive agreement that
eliminates this threat to global peace and security, I am deeply--
deeply--skeptical based upon these 20 years--based upon these 20
years--of experience.
The simple and deeply troubling fact is Iran is literally weeks to
months from a breakout, and the parameters of the final agreement laid
out in the Joint Plan of Action do not appear to set Iran's development
capacity back by more than a few weeks.
The Joint Plan of Action conceded, even before negotiations had
begun, Iran's right to some level of enrichment, despite a U.N.
resolution calling for Iran to suspend enrichment.
It provides no guarantees that we will resolve our concerns about
Iranian weaponization activities, that Iran will cease advanced
centrifuge research. Why is that important? Because we heard testimony
that the more advanced the centrifuge, the less centrifuges you need,
the quicker you can produce enriched uranium to be able to acquire that
bomb and the increasingly less verifiable it is. So Iran should have to
cease its advanced centrifuge research. It also provides no guarantees
that we will resolve our concerns that the IAEA will gain access to the
Parchin military base, that Iran will dismantle thousands of
centrifuges or that the Iranians will disclose the scope of their
activities.
It suggests that the resolution for the Arak heavy-water reactors,
which can provide a quicker plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons, may
be to put it under IAEA safeguards rather than require its
dismantlement. It seems to me we do not have time, under the testimony
taken before the committee, for Iran to hedge and obfuscate. They have
done a pretty good job of that, and that is what has brought them to
the cusp of being a nuclear state. There should be no chance for Iran
to buy more time, which, in effect, leaves us exactly where we are--
just hitting a pause button--with the state of play unchanged and Iran
weeks from breakout. To me that is a bad agreement, and in my view we
should be negotiating from a position of strength.
Last Tuesday night in the State of the Union, the President said:

If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with
the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America
can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

I agree. But I would point out to my colleagues that they did so from
a position of strength. President Kennedy sent U.S. warships to face
down the Soviets in Cuba, and Ronald Reagan dramatically built up U.S.
military might to an extent that what was the former Soviet Union could
not keep up the pace. We need to negotiate with Iran from a position of
strength, and then, yes--then we should have no fear about any such
negotiation.
The concerns I have raised are legitimate. They are not, as the
President's Press Secretary has said, ``warmongering.'' This is not
saber rattling. It is not Congress wanting to ``march to war,'' as
another White House spokesman said, but exactly the opposite.
I find it interesting--as someone who was then in the House of
Representatives and was in a small minority voting against the war in
Iraq, when an overwhelming number of my colleagues and many Members of
this body were voting for the war--to somehow be portrayed as a
warmonger. It is my mind that the use of sanctions--which is a limited
part of an arsenal of peaceful

[[Page S806]]

diplomacy tools--can get us to the successful negotiations we want.
At the end of the day, trying to keep the pressure on Iran to
completely satisfy the United Nations' and the international
community's demands for Iran to halt and reverse its illicit nuclear
activities is the best way to avoid war in the first place--to avoid
war in the first place.
Iran has proven in the past it will not negotiate in good faith
except when it has no other choice--as the tough sanctions we passed
have proven, by getting Iran to the table.
Iran says it will not negotiate with a gun to its head. I would
suggest it is Iran that has put the potential of a nuclear gun to the
world's head.
At the end of the day, name-calling is not an argument, nor is it a
sound policy. It is a false choice to say a vote for sanctions is
equivalent to warmongering. More pressure on Iran does not in any way
suggest that Congress wants war or that the Iranians feel backed into a
corner and will themselves choose war over reason.
So let's stop talking about warmongering. Let's instead fixate on the
final deal which, in my view, cannot and should not rely simply on
trust but on real, honest, verifiable dismantlement of Iran's
capability to produce even one nuclear bomb.
The ball is in the administration's court, not in Congress's. In
fact, the agreement specifically states--there has been a lot of talk
about how we should not consider any new sanctions, even if they are
prospective, which the legislation says nothing would happen until up
to 1 year, unless Iran violates the interim agreement or fails to
conclude an agreement in 1 year. But if we read the Joint Plan of
Action, what does it say? It says:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the
respective roles of the President and the Congress, will
refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

It does not say the United States of America. It does not say the
Congress. It says the ``Administration, acting consistent with the
respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from
imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.''
That is because the agreement acknowledges that the administration,
not Congress, will refrain from imposing new sanctions. The
administration knew it could not bind Congress to refrain from imposing
new sanctions because Congress is a separate coequal branch of
government.
So let's focus on what was agreed to by those at the table rather
than attributing blame to those who were not. We will not be the
scapegoats for a bad deal if it does not take the nuclear weapons
option off the table by insisting on dismantling existing capability,
not simply mothballing it.
So let me say I want diplomacy to work. That is why we worked so hard
to get to the opportunity. I wanted to produce the results we all hoped
for and have worked for.
But at a minimum, we need to send a message to Iran that our patience
is not unlimited and that we are skeptical of their intentions and a
message to the international community that the sanctions regime has
not weakened, that this is not an opportunity to reengage with Tehran.
I would urge everyone to look at the legislation I have drafted with my
colleague from Illinois and Members of both caucuses as a win for the
administration. They succeeded in convincing us--the administration
succeeded in convincing us to provide up to a 1-year window to
negotiate.
That is not the way the legislation was originally intended. But they
convinced us they needed an opportunity to negotiate and, hence, the
legislation was worked in such a way to create that opportunity. I
believe that is significant and generous, given Iran's history of
treachery and deceit. If Iran steps away from the negotiations or does
not live up to its agreement, it will be because they are not serious
about reaching a comprehensive deal.
I have heard the concerns of the administration. I know we share the
same goals. We have taken steps in the Foreign Relations Committee in
pursuit of those goals. We have worked with the administration to pass
legislation to help reform the Organization of American States. We have
moved 129--more now with the last week of nominees--that the
administration has put forward. We worked through Labor Day in a
bipartisan effort to quickly pass a resolution authorizing the use of
military force in Syria, which gave the President--there are those who
are critical of that as well--but that authorization gave the President
the ability to go to Russia and get a deal to end the use of chemical
weapons in Syria.
We passed and the President signed PEPFAR into law, the President's
emergency plan for AIDS relief. We have worked with the administration
on embassy security after Benghazi. We have worked with countless
administration officials and held two hearings on the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In all of those actions and much
more, I have worked closely with the administration. My intention now
is to assist the administration again in its negotiations by keeping
the pressure on Iran, which has always proven an unreliable negotiating
partner at best.
In my view, it is time to put Iranian rhetoric to the test. If we are
to take President Ruhani at his word, when he said in Davos last week
that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, if that is true, then the
Iranian Government should not have any problems with the obvious
followup to that claim, starting with the verifiable dismantling of its
illicit nuclear infrastructure. That is all the sanctions legislation
does. I do not think we should settle for anything less.
So let's be clear. I do not come to this floor in opposition, I come
in comity and in the spirit of unity that has always dictated our
foreign policy. But the Senate has an obligation to challenge
assumptions in a free and open debate. That is what is most
extraordinary about our government, and it echoes in the many debates
we have held in this Chamber on war and peace, on justice and freedom
and civil rights.
At the end of the day, we have an obligation to speak our minds on
what we believe is in the best interests of this Nation. It is in that
spirit that I come to the floor today. As GEN George Marshall said,
``Go right straight down the road, to do what is best, and do it
frankly without evasion.'' Today I am advocating for what I believe is
in our national interests and to do so as frankly and comprehensively
as I can.
As John Kennedy said about having differences of opinion, ``Let us
not be blind to [them], but let us also direct our attention to our
common interests and to the means by which those differences can be
resolved.'' The administration and the Senate have a common interest to
prevent a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. We have differences as to how
to achieve it. We have an obligation to debate those differences and
concerns.
But I will not yield on a principled difference. It is our obligation
to debate the issues, express our differences and outcomes, and come to
the floor to work together to resolve them. At the end of the day, my
hope, as someone who has been working on this for 20 years, can see the
fruition of a successful negotiation by the President and the
administration so Iran will never have a nuclear weapons capability.
But by the same token, I think we need to be poised to ensure that we
use the last elements of peaceful diplomacy, which is to ensure there
are sanctions that create consequences to the regime so they can put
that in their equation as to it is better to strike a deal and end our
illicit nuclear program than it is to pursue a course that creates
nuclear weapons. Because, if not, I fear, if we continue down this path
and our sanctions erode and all we do is limit and have safeguard
notices, warning signs, we will get the warning signs, but the
sanctions will be gone and the only options left to a future American
President will be do you accept a nuclear-armed Iran or do you have a
military option. Those are not desirable options.
It is our effort to avoid that being the ultimate question. That is
what we embody in the sanctions legislation that has passed this
Chamber and has been signed by the President and that we believe,
prospectively, can increase the pressure on Iran to come to that
peaceful conclusion, so that option of either accepting a nuclear-armed
Iran or having to have a military option to prevent it from doing so is
not the option for our country and for any future American President.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S807]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Russian Relations

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I come today because tomorrow is the
formal start of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. We certainly wish
all of our athletes well. We have a few from Florida. Believe it or
not, the Sunshine State has contributed a number of athletes to the
Winter Olympic efforts of our country. We wish them all the best.
We pray for their safety. We have all read media reports of the
potential for attacks. We pray that does not happen. Of course, our
government has tried to be as cooperative as possible with the Russian
Government in providing some level of security assistance. They have
been less than open about that. So we hope and pray things will go well
there. Let me just say at the outset, Olympics should never be
politicized. I hope these are not either. So my comments are not about
the Olympics per se, but I do think it is an important time, given
where they are occurring, to take a moment to reflect on the nature of
and our Nation's relationship with the host country, with Russia,
because they are going to be in the news a lot over the next few days.
We have all heard the debates about some of the more extreme examples
of intolerance that exist within Russia, particularly as a result of
President Vladimir Putin and his government.
I want to take a moment to describe where I think the relations
between Russia and the United States stand and particularly how Russia
views itself--the government, I should say--in the world.
At the outset let me begin by saying that when I talk about
governments, when I talk about countries such as Russia or China, for
instance, we are talking about the government leaders, not the people.
In fact, we know that in both of those countries--especially in Russia,
in China, as well as in many other countries--there are people who do
not like the direction their political leadership is taking them.
In fact, I would say that in countries such as China and Russia it
might be the majority of people who strongly disagree with the
direction that its so-called leaders are taking. What we talk about is
our relationship with their governments--and in this case our
relationship with Vladimir Putin and the decisions that he has made.
The best way to understand the situation with Russia is that there is
primarily a president who has nationalistic tendencies in Putin, and he
wants Russia to somehow reclaim what he views as its glory days of
world prominence. He believes and has concluded that the best way to do
that is to be antagonistic and outright hostile to the United States.
Part of that plan is an effort to create among his neighbors--
particularly those republics that used to be part of the Soviet Union--
to bring them under Russia's sphere of influence.
We have two stunning examples of that over the past few years. The
first is the Republic of Georgia, which they invaded a few years ago,
and even now they occupy territory within it.
In fact, as part of these Olympics, one of the things Russia has done
is it has sealed off portions of Georgian territory they claim they
need for a security buffer. That is completely outrageous, but that is
happening with very little attention on the international stage.
The other is to see what is happening in Ukraine and to see how they
used the threat of noncooperation economically, and even subterfuge
economically, to try to force Ukraine to reject a deal to integrate
with the European Union and instead seek to be part of this new thing
that the Russian government is trying to create.
As part of that agenda as well, they have viewed themselves with the
need to be antagonistic toward the United States. But in the process of
doing that, not only have they been antagonistic toward the United
States, they have been antagonistic toward the cause of human rights
and of world peace.
There are some stunning examples.
Certainly within Russia we have seen the targeting and the oppression
of everything from a rock band to journalists. We know the story of
Sergei Magnitsky, who was doing nothing more than investigating rampant
official corruption. We saw how what happened with him.
We have seen it line up on the international stage. For example, they
are--perhaps other than Iran, and perhaps equal with Iran--the most
important supporter of Assad and of what he is doing in Syria--the
slaughter of innocent civilians. There are over 100,000 people dead and
hundreds of thousands of others now living in refugee camps, displaced
from their homes. This is who the Russian President and the Russian
government have lined up with.
Beyond that, we should see the attitude they have taken toward Iran.
They have not been, despite the administration's assertions, productive
in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, they have
been supportive or at a minimum have been a roadblock to progress being
made with regard to preventing a nuclear Iran.
On issue after issue we see this Russian government lining itself up
diametrically opposed not only to the interests of the United States
but to the interests of the cause of world peace. I understand that the
situation in Syria is complicated, but how could one possibly find
himself to be such a strong and blind ally of a killer, a murderer, a
criminal like Assad?
There are problems in those rebel groups too. There are some
terrorists involved in that. Unfortunately, it appears they have grown
in prominence among the rebellion. It is not an easy issue to confront,
but at a minimum one would expect that a country that believes in human
rights and the dignity of all the people would at a minimum add their
voice in condemnation of what is happening in Syria, and to the conduct
of the Assad government.
Instead, they have been involved in trying to pursue ridiculous
conspiracy theories, such as the notion that somehow the chemical
attacks that occurred there were not conducted by Assad and his regime.
Beyond those things and what they have done at home and abroad, what
have they done directly toward the United States? Let's talk about what
they have done toward their neighbors and the constant threats to their
neighbors--and in some instances a willingness to carry it out by
invading the Republic of Georgia.
Then, of course, we turn to their relationship with us. What have
they done? A couple of actions bear watching.
The first is what they have done with their weapons systems. They
continue to invest an extraordinary amount of money--for a country that
is going through the economic challenges that they are confronting--to
build up their conventional weapons capabilities. They are again
sending naval forces to different parts of the world, trying to flex
some muscle.
It is not as powerful as the Soviet Union, but they are trying to
project power in that way. Usually they find places to project power
that they know would somehow challenge the strategic interests of the
United States. Last week we read in the New York Times that there is
evidence they may be in violation of an arms control agreement.
In the face of all of this, the initial attitude of this
administration was that we need to reset policy toward Russia and
understand what was behind that idea. What was behind that idea was the
notion that the reason we didn't have a good relationship with Putin
and with Russia and the Russian government was because the U.S.--the
previous President, George W. Bush--was too abrasive. This is not only
for Russia, but this is a theory they applied all over the world. If we
could only reset that relationship, if we could just be more
cooperative with them, and if we could show them that we were more
willing to talk and be open-minded, somehow that would affect their
behavior.
What did Putin and their government do? They did what any good former

[[Page S808]]

KGB agent would do. They took what we offered them and kept doing what
they wanted. They took whatever concessions we were putting on the
table, and they kept doing whatever they wanted.
What is stunning to me is not only the administration's unwillingness
to acknowledge that the reset policy has not worked, but in some
instances their desire to double down on us. The President continues to
talk about additional reductions in strategic weapons vis-a-vis the
Russians.
Yet last week we heard, as I said a moment ago, that they are
probably already in violation of an existing agreement. We have allowed
them to convince us not to pursue anti-missile technologies or advanced
and additional anti-missile technologies and defense systems in Eastern
Europe.
Our allies, by the way, look at us and say: What is going on? It adds
to this air of instability. It adds to the questions that now exist,
and it adds to the notion that we have now become an unreliable ally in
the world. Other countries are watching this as well, and they are
taking note. This is the situation that we face. Because the Olympics
are in Russia, the whole world is about to see it.

For example, we can't say for sure that this had anything to do with
the government, but last night--I read a report today in the Wall
Street Journal that said that for one of its reporters, in the middle
of the night someone opened the door to their room and tried to walk in
for a moment.
Again, do we know if that was the Russian government? No, we don't
know that for sure, but that seems to be a recurring issue there--the
sort of surveillance state where opposition is oppressed and the people
are watched, where political opponents could be arrested, jailed or
exiled.
The Russian government is starting to look more and more every day,
in its attitude, like the former Soviet Union--and in its behavior. I
think we have the right to be concerned about it.
When I come to the floor and talk about these issues, and other
colleagues do, this is not because we want confrontation. On the
contrary. We hope to avoid all of these things.
We have plenty of issues to focus on in this country, but we cannot
be naive. We must never forget the lessons of history that teach us
that when behavior such as this and attitudes like this go unaddressed,
when your potential adversary shows weakness, insecurity, and
indecisiveness, it invites them to be even more aggressive, and it
invites them to miscalculate.
While I do believe that the Olympics are an issue that should not be
politicized, our relationship with Russia is one that deserves serious
attention in this body. This idea that somehow this is a relic of Cold
War issues and that we shouldn't be focused on it in the same way is
naive.
They still have an enormous nuclear arsenal. They still have a
significant conventional military capability, and they have someone
running their government who is not an ally or a friend of the United
States.
On the contrary. He has come to believe that what is bad for the
United States is good for Russia. We should not be naive about that in
our dealings, and we should not, under any circumstances, betray,
undermine or abandon our commitment to our allies in the region and to
the countries that are Russia's neighbors for the sake of seeking to
improve the relationship with the Russian government because they will
continue to do what they have already done. They will take our
concessions, and they will keep doing whatever they want.
I hope that as a part of this week and the next couple of weeks in
these Olympics we--as policymakers, with all of the issues happening in
our country, and all of the challenges we face around the world--will
take more time to truly examine the nature of this government in Russia
and what our relationship should be toward them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Ensuring Economic Opportunity

Mr. COONS. I come to the floor once again to talk about manufacturing
jobs and their importance for rebuilding the American middle class,
their importance for our economy, and their importance for our future.
Last week President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address
before a joint session of this Congress, and he talked about what we
can and should do together to invest in America's workers, to spur job
creation, and to expand economic opportunity. He said:

What I believe unites the people of this nation . . . is
the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all--the
notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can
and should get ahead. . . . Opportunity is who we are. And
the defining project of our generation is to restore that
trust.

I couldn't agree more. At a basic level, one thing we need to do is
to put up a floor under the struggling workers in America who are
continuing to seek work and to come together to extend emergency
unemployment insurance for these long-term job seekers.
While jobs remain, sadly, more scarce than they should be in our
economy and as we continue in recovery, we can't let Americans fall
through the cracks as they continue to seek work.
But since the extended unemployment insurance benefits expired last
December, 1.7 million Americans, including more than 4,000 Delawareans,
have lost the unemployment insurance that is critical to their
families, to keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Emergency unemployment insurance, which this body once again today
failed to extend, is a critical lifeline to Americans out of work
through no fault of their own and who are doing everything they can to
get back to work. While they are searching for jobs, we should make
sure they can put food on their tables and keep their families sound.
One Delawarean I have heard from who relies on this lifeline is
Raymond from Newark. Raymond was laid off last April from his job at
the EVRAZ steel mill in Claymont. He is not sitting at home based on
these unemployment benefits. He is not showing dependency, as some have
suggested here. He has averaged more than 30 job applications each and
every week. He has four children depending on him--one in college with
tuition payments.
He wrote to me saying: ``My job search is more than finding a job; it
is searching to make an honest living.''
Raymond, to you, and to the more than the 1 million Americans who
rely on decent work to give meaning to their lives, to give support to
their families, and to give purpose and opportunity to their children
and their future, we can and should do more--not only by extending the
unemployment insurance, not only by increasing the minimum wage, but by
building the middle class of this country to work together.
Folks such as Raymond have worked hard and paid their taxes. They
have earned the opportunity when they really need it to get
unemployment insurance. That is why they paid into it for so many
years. But we need to do more beyond just extending unemployment
insurance.
We need to invest in Raymond's future. We need to invest in the
skills that will help Americans like him transition from his job in a
steel mill to a plant that is open and has a job that needs to be
filled.
Throughout our history broad-based job growth and job creation have
ensured economic opportunity that was there for millions of millions of
Americans across several generations. Anyone who was able and willing
to work in this country for a long time was able to find a decent job
and a ladder into the middle class. By investing in our Nation's
workforce, our people, through public education, through the GI bill,
and through access to higher education, we have been a country where
anyone who was willing to work could make it if they combined their
work ethic and talents with the skills they needed.
During World War II, in the postwar boom, manufacturing was an
economic backbone. Our country was the pathway to the middle class that
made all of this possible. American manufacturing was the sturdy
manifestation of that central American idea that if you work hard and
play by the rules, you can provide for your family today so your
children can get access to higher education, a brighter future, and you
can have a secure retirement tomorrow. That is the essence of the
American middle class.

[[Page S809]]

The basic opportunity that manufacturing provided--those strong and
stable rungs by which Americans could pull themselves up the ladder of
opportunity--was the heart of America's economic engine, it was the
glue that held communities together, but over the past few decades it
has changed dramatically. As the world has changed, as billions of
competitors have entered global markets, from China to India to Russia,
so has the nature of manufacturing, as technology has advanced and the
playing field on which we compete globally has changed fundamentally.
The critical impact of low wages abroad and of trade deals that were
not effectively enforced has been well documented. But too often people
draw the wrong conclusion about the future of manufacturing based on
its recent past. I have heard many arguing that manufacturing is no
longer an industry, a sector where America can compete because this
global playing field is tilted and there will always be workers in some
country who will work for less, and so we are relegated to inevitably
lose what is left of our manufacturing in a race to the bottom. The
suggestion has been made in some sectors that we should thrive with
service and high-skilled research and development and financial
services but not manufacturing. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
In my view, only if we continue to be a country where we invent
things, grow things, and make things will we continue to be a leading
economy where there is real opportunity for all Americans. Why? Because
manufacturing jobs are high-quality jobs both for those who work in
them, who get higher wages and higher benefits, but also for the local
economy, where manufacturing jobs provide more of a compounding benefit
than any other sector.
Some suggest we just can't compete because our labor standards, our
environmental protections, and our wages are too high. But look to
Germany and Europe, and you can see this isn't true. They have higher
labor standards and higher environmental protections than we do, and
yet more than double the percentage of their economy, the percentage of
their GDP is manufacturing because their government, their education
sector, and their private sector work in close harmony to do what we
need to do.
Since manufacturers invest the most in private sector R&D, where
there is manufacturing, there is also a wealth of high-skilled research
work. That is one of the other benefits of manufacturing. Tech
development works the best when research centers are close to where
products are made. Over the long term it is hard to have one without
the other. So as our manufacturing base has moved offshore, we have
been at risk of losing our research base. But just in the last few
years there has been a dynamic that is encouraging of jobs coming back
to this country. As our productivity continues to grow, as our energy
costs go down, and as that wage gap closes, we have actually been
regaining ground in manufacturing.
I am convinced that if we want to rebuild an economy that is dynamic
and that grows, one that provides opportunities to the middle class,
manufacturing must be at the center--in fact, must be the foundation.
What is true is that because the global economy has shifted so
dramatically, we need to shift our strategy and our approach. The
manufacturing that America excels at today is more advanced and
requires higher skilled workers than ever before. Rather than repeating
the same tasks over and over, workers today in manufacturing have to be
able to carry out complex and varying tasks; to be able to see what is
not going right and fix it as a collaborative team; to understand the
manufacturing process and to innovate continuously. They have to have
critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The sorts of things
workers weren't expected to do 30 years ago are a minimum requirement
today. They need to understand manufacturing, and they need to be able
to program and to improve the caliber and productivity of the machines
that do most of the repetitive simple labor of manufacturing today.
We can train Americans for these jobs, but our schools and our
institutions of higher learning, our community colleges and
universities have to be tightly integrated into a skill-training system
that is demand-driven rather than giving people training and praying
that somehow they will find their way to an appropriate employer.
That is why I was so encouraged when President Obama placed such an
emphasis on workplace skills training and manufacturing in his State of
the Union speech. By modernizing our education system and building real
and enduring partnerships between schools and businesses, we can ensure
our workers have the skills that employers actually need today and
tomorrow; so when a guy like Raymond from a steel mill in Claymont is
laid off, he can have the opportunity to improve his skills, to retool
his abilities, and to move right into an open and available
manufacturing job. A recent study showed there were more than 600,000
manufacturing jobs--high-skilled, high-wage, high-benefit jobs--in
America today unfilled because of this skills gap.
While I understand and even appreciate President Obama's commitment
to making some progress in the coming year through Executive orders, he
should not give up on working with Congress. It is just February. It is
too early in this year for us to give up on the possibility of passing
bipartisan legislation together.
I think more than ever, because of the message it sends domestically
and internationally, we have to find a way to work together to make
progress on the critical issue of manufacturing skills and to do what
we can together to grow our economy and rebuild our middle class. That
is why I have been working so hard with my colleagues on the
Manufacturing Jobs for America campaign here in the Senate.
Manufacturing Jobs for America is a campaign to build support for good
manufacturing legislation on which Democrats and Republicans can agree.
So far we have had 26 Democratic Senators introduce 32 bills. Almost
half of them have Republican cosponsors already, and we are seeking
more each and every week.
Our bills focus on four areas that, if we were to enact them, could
have a real and substantial impact on manufacturing and opportunity in
our country: strengthening America's modern workforce skills, as I have
spoken to; fighting for a more level global playing field and opening
export markets to America's manufacturers of all sizes. Medium and
small businesses have been growing their exports, but we could grow so
much more, and that would sustain the growth in manufacturing; third,
making it easier for manufacturers to access capital and invest in the
R&D I spoke to a moment ago; and fourth, ensuring a coordinated
government-wide effort in support of a national manufacturing strategy.
All of our competitors have them. We alone don't, and we need a
national manufacturing strategy to make sure that skills, access to
exports, and access to capital all happen.
Madam President, adapting our economy to the realities of a new era
is a challenge we have struggled with for more than a generation. Yet
figuring out how to realize an economy where growth is both strong and
more equitable--one that is dynamic and creative and globally
competitive and also has a broad middle class, provides security for
working families, and leaves no one behind; an economy that invests in
the dreams and aspirations of our children--building that economy is
the central challenge we face. Manufacturing can and should be the
foundation of that economy.
If we want America to be as strong in the 21st century as it was in
the 20th, we need American manufacturing. Let's work together and get
this done.
I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their
partnership, their interest, and their work. I so much look forward to
working together in the weeks ahead to prove to the American people
that we can make bipartisan progress on manufacturing.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

The Economy

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, it was fascinating to watch the
headlines change over the course of the day after the CBO report on the
status of the implementation of health care was released. At first, the
headlines flashed that the CBO report said the health care reform law
was going to cost 2\1/2\

[[Page S810]]

million jobs, and Republicans ran to the cable networks to trumpet that
number. In fact, many mainstream newspapers actually ran initial
headlines suggesting the same. But then, as people actually started to
read the CBO report, they discovered the truth. They discovered the
fact that the CBO report actually says the economy is going to grow
because of the health care law. And to the extent there are reductions
in the hours people work, it is going to be because individuals are now
no longer required to work simply because they need to get health care.
They can now make decisions about what they want to do with their life,
the kind of work they want to do and the amount of time they want to
devote to it, not simply because they are job-locked due to health care
insecurity.
So I wanted to come to the floor today, as some of my colleagues
have, to set the record straight on what the implementation of the
health care law really means for the economy and to specifically focus
on this issue of what it means to individuals who for decades have been
forced to make decisions about their labor connected only to the kind
of job that would provide for health care for them and their families.
I think back to a day not long after we passed the bill, a day that I
was taking my little then-2-year-old son to our community pool in
Cheshire, CT. I was in the pool splashing around with my son, and a guy
not more than a few years older than I came across the pool and tapped
me on the shoulder.
He said: I am really sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to say
thank you.
I said: That is nice. ``Thank you'' for what?
He said: I wanted to say thank you for passing the health care reform
law because I have a little son too, and he has a congenital heart
defect. We spend a lot of money trying to take care of his illness.
First, the health care bill is going to save us a lot of money, but
that is not really why I am so thankful for what you did. What I am
truly thankful for is the fact that I can rest easily at night now
knowing that my son's life and that his career won't be dictated by his
illness; that my son can now live out his dreams, do whatever he wants
to do with his life rather than spending his life searching for a job
that will cover his illness and worrying about whether a small gap in
employment will forever take him off the rolls of the insured forever.
That has been the reality in our country for too long. If you had a
chronic illness or a genetic illness or a condition that was on the
list of preexisting illnesses at America's insurance companies, A, you
had a hard time finding a job because a lot of people didn't want to
hire somebody who came with those high insurance costs, and then once
you found the job, you could never leave because you couldn't risk
losing the insurance that was paying your bills.
The health care reform law unlocks economic possibilities for
millions of people all across this country who haven't gone out and
started that business they knew could grow, they knew could result in
dozens of employees being hired, because they couldn't leave their
existing job and the insurance it provided for them and for their
families.
That is what the CBO report says. The CBO report says that to the
extent there are going to be less hours worked, it is because
individuals will no longer be tied to their jobs because of their need
to get health care benefits. That is the real story of the CBO report.
In fact, the CBO report says this: Expanded Federal subsidies for
health insurance will stimulate demand for goods and services, and that
effect will mostly occur over the next few years. That increase in
demand will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase
their employees' hours during that period.
That is economic growth. That is not economic contraction.
Now, this is a really simple chart. I am not going to claim that the
numbers in it are a reflection simply of the legislation we passed. But
for all my Republican colleagues who rushed down to either the floor or
to the cable news networks to decry the CBO report and who in general
have continued to make the case that the health care law is hurting the
economy, this is about as simple a chart as you need.
In the decades before we passed the Affordable Care Act this economy
lost 3.8 million jobs, and in the 45 months since we passed the
Affordable Care Act this economy has created 8.1 million jobs.
Nobody is satisfied with the pace of job growth, but nobody can say
the passage of the Affordable Care Act has hurt jobs. Anecdotally,
anybody can bring one or two stories to the floor suggesting an
individual businessperson decided to not hire someone because of the
Affordable Care Act. But the CBO report also says this: In CBO's
judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has
increased as a result of the ACA. That is a specific talking point that
opponent of the ACA after opponent of the ACA brings out into the
public debate, that what is going to happen is that because there is a
requirement to provide insurance for full-time employees and not part-
time employees, we are going to see millions of full-time jobs
eliminated and put into part-time employment. CBO says, in CBO's
judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has
increased as a result of the ACA. They say the effect of the Affordable
Care Act will increase demand and induce some employers to hire more
workers or to increase their employees' hours during that period.
But the news is even better because we are also getting definitive
results on the amount of money we are spending as taxpayers when it
comes to our health care budget.
Here is a simple chart that tells us what the current law projection
was with respect to health care spending in this country. This builds
out the trendline all the way to 2085. I will concede it is probably
not worthwhile to necessarily predict what health care expenditures
will be in 2085, but we don't even have to go there to see that pretty
quickly the actual average of annual growth rate of health care is
going to come in way lower than what the current law projection is. In
fact, it is going to come in at such a lower rate because of the
passage of the Affordable Care Act, we are going to be saving on
average $250 billion a year. Not wholly because of the health care law
but in large part because of the implementation of the health care law,
we are going to be saving $250 billion a year just in Medicare spending
because we are starting to build a health care system which focuses on
prevention--every Medicare participant now gets free wellness visits--
and a system which rewards outcomes rather than volume, which rewards
quality health care rather than just lots of health care.
So it is time that we start talking about the true economic impact of
the Affordable Care Act. For all of the political and rhetorical
bluster, CBO tells us that the economy will grow because of the act and
that full-time employment will not turn into part-time employment.
To the extent there are less hours worked in this country, as the CBO
report clearly says, it is because individuals are finally going to be
empowered to make decisions for themselves about what the proper work
schedule for them and their family is, not based on whether they can
get health care.
I will share one story that illustrates the decisions being made out
there right now today when it comes to the economic benefit that can
accrue from the Affordable Care Act.
A small business owner in Enfield, CT, just wrote this:

I am a small business owner in Enfield who struggled for
the last 26 years with finding affordable, quality health
insurance coverage. For the last three years, I've been
paying our current carrier . . . $1,552.00 a month to cover
myself and my 17-year-old son. My son was injured in the fall
while playing high school football and required surgery on
his shoulder. My deductible for the surgery was $3,000.
Paying for health insurance and medical bills has been a
constant struggle. That's why I decided a week ago to check
out Access Health CT to see if I could get help going
forward. After I entered my information on the website, I
discovered that my son and I could stay with [that same
carrier] with a better package including eye exams and
glasses coverage for only $328 a month and a $500 deductible.
I signed up the same day. My new insurance starts March 1st.
This is far better than I ever thought it would be. I was
worried that health insurance would put me out of business
after all those years, but now I feel I can keep my business
going. I may even hire a new employee. I want to say thank
you to everyone

[[Page S811]]

from the state to the federal level that has made Access
Health CT a reality. Don't believe the rumors--check it out
yourself. I am so glad I did.

Don't believe the quick snap headlines that get written when a
complicated economic report comes out, as it did yesterday, because if
we read beyond the headlines, we will find that the economic evidence--
the budget evidence is saying over and over that the Affordable Care
Act is going to create jobs; that the Affordable Care Act is creating
jobs; that the Affordable Care Act will save taxpayers billions of
dollars; that the Affordable Care Act is saving taxpayers billions of
dollars.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Luger Nomination

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise again today to urge a vote in
the Senate to confirm Andrew Luger to be Minnesota's U.S. attorney.
For 2\1/2\ years--or 890 days--Minnesota has not had a full-time U.S.
attorney. During those years, from August 2011 to August 2013, Todd
Jones was responsible for doing two jobs--as the Minnesota U.S.
attorney and then also as Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Over the summer, the Senate confirmed
Todd Jones as Director of the ATF, leaving the Minnesota U.S.
attorney's position open.
Even before the confirmation of Todd Jones this summer, Senator
Franken and I--upon the recommendation of our bipartisan U.S. attorney
advisory committee--had already recommended Andrew Luger, a respected
litigator and former assistant U.S. attorney, to fill the position.
This was 199 days ago. In November President Obama nominated Andrew
Luger to become the new U.S. attorney, and the Judiciary Committee
approved his nomination unanimously on January 9.
It is time we do what is right by quickly confirming Andrew Luger to
make sure Minnesota has its highest law enforcement officer in place.
I also note that there is an opening in the Iowa U.S. Attorney's
Office. The Judiciary Committee also unanimously approved the
President's nomination for that position, and that person is also
awaiting confirmation. In fact, I learned today he is in one city and
his family is in another city in Iowa, and they would like to be
united. That nomination is also pending.
I thank Senator Grassley, who has supported our nominee, as I have
supported his in Iowa. I think Senator Grassley is also aware of some
of the issues with the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office due to the fact
that we have not had a full-time attorney for 888 days. He has been
supportive of our efforts to quickly move Mr. Luger's nomination.
The position of U.S. attorney is a law enforcement post that the
Founders regarded as so vital that they created it during the very
first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This is the same act which
created the Attorney General and the structure of the Supreme Court and
lower courts.
According to the act, each judicial district would be provided with
``a person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States
. . . whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all
delinquents for crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of
the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States
shall be concerned.''
The U.S. attorney is a position so necessary that President Zachary
Taylor appointed Henry Moss--a name somewhat lost in history--to the
post within 2 days of Minnesota becoming a State. Now Minnesota has
been waiting for a full-time U.S. attorney for 2\1/2\ years.
I know my colleagues understand the importance of their own U.S.
attorneys. Some of my esteemed colleagues have a very deep
understanding of the position, having served as U.S. attorneys prior to
joining the Senate. Senator Sessions was appointed by President Reagan
and served as U.S. attorney in Alabama for 12 years. Senator Whitehouse
was U.S. attorney for Rhode Island, appointed by President Bill
Clinton. And Senator Blumenthal was appointed to be U.S. attorney for
Connecticut by President Carter.
Other colleagues have been assistant U.S. attorneys, and my guess is
that when they were assistant U.S. attorneys, they had a full-time U.S.
attorney in their office. Assistant U.S. attorneys included in the
Senate are Senator Lee of Utah and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico.
They know firsthand how crucial it is for these offices to have a U.S.
attorney and other top leadership in place. I think they would agree
with me that 890 days without a full time U.S. attorney in Minnesota is
far too long.
Since 1849 the District of Minnesota's 31 U.S. attorneys have upheld
the rule of law, the Constitution, and the rights of our State's
citizens, and tirelessly pursued justice on their behalf.
Over the past 48 years, for the past half century, more than half of
the U.S. attorneys for Minnesota, appointed by Republican and Democrats
alike, were confirmed within a day of when they passed out of the
Judiciary Committee. One-fourth were confirmed the very same day.
During this timeframe, they were confirmed within an average of 28 days
of being passed out of committee.
It has now been 28 days since Mr. Luger was approved by the Judiciary
Committee. Compare that to Thomas Heffelfinger, who was nominated by
President George W. Bush to be U.S. attorney for Minnesota on September
4, 2001; he was confirmed on September 13. His entire confirmation
process took only 11 days. Mr. Luger was nominated 77 days ago; that is
seven times longer. In 1998 the Senate confirmed Todd Jones within 2
weeks of his nomination by President Clinton.
The Senate has a history of filling this important position quickly.
Nominees have not been used as pawns in some kind of a disagreement
over issues. They have simply been confirmed. We have simply gotten it
done.
The quick action by President Taylor and the speed with which the
Senate has confirmed the past U.S. attorneys for Minnesota show how
much our government has historically valued this position, how much we
have wanted to keep politics out of the way of this position.
The over 100 employees who work for the U.S. attorney in Minnesota
don't run as Democrats or Republicans. We don't even know what their
political parties are. They deserve a boss in their office to take this
position, which has been historically filled almost immediately after
it gets through the Judiciary Committee. They deserve a boss in their
office.
With each day that passes we are doing an injustice not only to the
Founding Fathers who emphasized the position's importance and the
Presidents who have acted quickly to fill it but also to the more than
100 people who work in that office.
The men and women in the Minnesota U.S. Attorneys Office exemplify
the professionalism, high ethical standards, and unwavering commitment
to the rule of law and public safety that we expect of prosecutors.
They work to protect the public safety by focusing on offenders who
harm our community--terrorists, the worst of the worst, violent
criminals, drug traffickers, and major financial fraudsters.
They also work closely with local law enforcement to ensure that
local and Federal resources are used efficiently and effectively to
prevent crime and lock up criminals. For example, the office recently
won a conviction in a $3.65 billion Ponzi case--the second biggest
Ponzi scheme in U.S. history. The biggest was the Madoff case. The
second came out of the District of Minnesota, $3.65 billion. Of course,
that case was initiated when we had a full-time U.S. attorney. That
case was prosecuted mainly when we had a full-time U.S. attorney.
What else does the office have? It has an ongoing terrorist
investigation that has led to charges against 18 people for aiding the
terrorist organization al-Shabaab. If you asked anyone over at the
FBI--including the FBI Director who was recently quoted in a story in
the Los Angeles Times about the importance of this investigation--they
would tell you it would be pretty nice to have a full-time U.S.
attorney in that office. Eight of the people who

[[Page S812]]

have already been charged have been convicted. Some received sentences
up to 20 years in prison.
Other major work from the office includes Operation Highlife, a major
drug trafficking investigation involving more than 100 local, State,
and Federal law enforcement officers, resulting in 26 indictments, 25
guilty pleas, and sentences up to 200 months in prison.
I would note that right now we are experiencing--as they are in many
places around the country--a heroin epidemic in Minnesota. Over 50
people in Hennepin County died last year from heroin overdoses. That is
what we are talking about.
We have a heroin epidemic, and then we have to go home and tell the
people of our State that the Senate has not yet confirmed a U.S.
attorney.
He went through the committee unanimously--not one objection. The
committee he was voted out of includes a very diverse group of
Senators, including Senator Cruz, Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, and
Senator Whitehouse.
I recommended Andrew Luger to the President, and he was nominated. He
has the support of our Republican Congressmen near the Twin Cities.
Andrew Luger went through that committee without objection and deserves
to be voted on by this Senate.
Operation Brother's Keeper is another example of a successful
investigation and prosecution of a RICO case involving a regional 200-
member gang which took 22 dangerous criminals off the street.
Operation Malverde received national attention and had a prosecution
of 27 defendants associated with the Mexican drug cartel--including the
apprehension of the cartel's regional leader--with sentences as high as
20 years in prison.
The office also recently prosecuted a case involving a major
synthetic drug seller in Duluth, MN. This head shop was a huge problem
and a scourge in the community. They went after it, prosecuted the
owner, and found $700,000 in plastic bags hidden in his bathroom, and
they won that case.
These are just a few of the major cases this office has worked on
over the last few years. It has been 890 days since we had a full-time
boss, which was due, in part, to the delay in filling the position of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It took nearly
1 year for this body to act on that nomination because this body had
not confirmed anyone for that full-time job for 7 years.
After Operation Fast and Furious, and the disaster with that case, it
was finally decided that we need a full-time, confirmed Director at the
ATF. Our U.S. attorney agreed to work at both jobs for 2 years and was
finally confirmed. We finally have a nominee, and that person is now
waiting. That is how we get to 890 days without a full-time boss.
The Senate has always served the people of Minnesota well in making
sure that our State has a U.S. attorney. I think we need to continue
that tradition and honor the value our Founding Fathers entrusted in
this position.
It is time we vote on Mr. Luger's nomination. He is a dedicated
public servant whose breadth of experience and strength of character
and commitment to justice makes him a well-qualified candidate.
No one has questioned or shed any doubt on his qualifications; that
is not the issue. Oftentimes that is an issue with nominees, but that
is not the issue in this case. The issue is that we simply--as we have
in the past--allowed a voice vote on these nominations. It has taken an
average of 8 days after coming out of the committee for the District of
Minnesota. The first U.S. attorney for Minnesota took 2 days. We have
now waited 890 days.
It is time to get this done.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner).
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________