[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.

                          ____________________