quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. 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 went. he talked about -- with respect. he said this about the web site.

he said it got fixed within a month and a half, he said it was up and running and then he said 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. mr. president, 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 that it's working the way it's supposed to, and you look at that headline on the front page of "the washington post" on monday, health site can't handle appeals. health site can't handle appeals. thousands of requests for fixes filed but unprocessed.

filed but unprocessed. is that 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 the healthcare.gov made mistakes. that's what they discovered, the web site made mistakes as they were signing up for a health care plan and they were confronting a new roadblock, that government cannot yet fix the errors. well, the president may think he's perfect but there are a lot of errors with his web site and to say it's working the way it's supposed to, to me cites presidential denial. 22,000 people, the article says. is that what president obama means when the web site is working the way it's supposed to?

one woman quoted in the article -- mr. president, i'm talking about the front page of "the washington post," 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's paying $100 a more more than she should, her deductible is $4,000 too high. she said she needed the insurance and now she's stuck. well, was that what president obama thought this web site was supposed to do? was it supposed to overcharge this woman a hundred dollars a month, set her deductible too high by $4,000? was it supposed to prevent her from appealing that mistake? you're stuck with it, the mistake was made by the web site, you're stuck. the president seems to think. here's another headline that ran on monday, the day after the president's interview. it was in the anchorage daily news in alaska.

it says enroll alaska mistakenly releases hundreds of email addresses. alaska is one of the states that hasn't done their own exchange. they're part of the federal exchange. it uses healthcare.gov. the article says enroll alaska mistakenly released over 300 email addresses monday afternoon when an employee sent out a mass message about a healthcare.gov glich without mavericking its recipients. -- masking its recipients. number one, there was a glitch, they went to tell people about the glitch -- remember, the president says 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're trying to point out the incompetence of the web site in the first place. is that the way president obama thinks that things are supposed to work with his web site?

this is the kind of security issue that many of us have been worried about from the beginning. people have to provide a lot of their personal information to this web site. financial information, health information, social security number, demographic information, and there's just not enough assurance that the information is being properly protected. so this time they sent out people's email addresses, maybe next time they'll send out people's social security numbers, their health information, their financial information, or other personal information. now, that's 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's 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, he's 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, that is a very real problem with the man in the white house. now, that's just the web site. that's what the president was talking about in that interview. what else about the health care law is working the way it's supposed to, i ask you, mr. president. 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's exactly what's going to happen. here's how the paper has reported it. "the new york times," health care law projected to cut the labor force. health care law projected to cut the labor force. "the wall street journal," health law to cut into labor force. here's how "the hill" put it. obamacare will cost 2.5 million

workers by 2024. is that the way the obama administration thinks its health care law is supposed to work? well, they're actually saying yes, that it is. jason furman, the president's tom comips said the health care law he said is helping labor markets, helping businesses, it's 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 that 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've seen their deductibles go up. millions of hardworking americans have had their insurance policies canceled. why?

because of the law. now we're seeing people's personal information put at risk, and we're seeing the damage the law is doing to the labor force. president obama says it's working just the way it's supposed to. that's what he says. the president is wrong. the web site is not working and his health care law isn't working. it's 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, front page story today, "wall street journal," 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 their policies canceled. others losing their doctors. we've seen premium costs go up. we've seen deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses go up. and the issue of security fraud. the web site is a problem, the

web site failures is just the tip of the iceberg. it's time to get rid of this terrible health care law, replace it with real reform before it does any additional damage to america's labor force and to the american people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. 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. and i have long thought of this as a bipartisan national security issue, not a partisan political issue. and at the end of the day, it is a national security issue that we must approach in a spirit of bipartisanship and unity which has been the spirit for which we have worked together on this matter. and i hope that we will not find

ourselves in a partisan process trying to force a vote on a national security matter before its appropriate time. now, let me say at the outset, i support the administration's diplomatic efforts. i have always supported a true tack policy of si diplomacy and sanctions. at the same time, i'm convinced that we should only relieve pressure on iran in exchange for verifiable concessions that will dismantle iran's nuclear program. and 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 any time in the next 20 to 30 years. and i'm they're unequivocally state my intention as chairman of the foreign relations committee to make absolutely certain that any deal that we may reach with iran is

verifiable, effective and prevents them from ever developing even one nuclear weapon. now, 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's the administration that is at the negotiating table with the iranians, not us, and it's the administration that's ultimately responsible for negotiating a deal to conclusively end iran's elicit nuclear program. and it's the administration that will have to come back to congress and tell us whether iran will continue to be a nuclear threshold state. and 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. as al i akbar soulia, who is head of eye rain's nuclear nuclr program, said "the ice cubes are

melting." 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 fort ole facility, and stop the reactor at arak from ever possibly coming on-line, and it should require iran's full disclosure of its nuclear activities, including its weaponnization activities. for the good of the region and the world, iran cannot remain nuclear weapon threshold state, period. a final agreement should move back the time line 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 date. david albright, a respected former international atomic energy agency inspector, has said that for iran to move from an interto him a final agreement -- interim to a final agreement, it would have to close the forto facility and remove between 15,000 and 16,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. and he had, in testimony before the senate foreign relations committee, a long list of elements that he thinks is critical towards a final agreement. even, however, after such dramatic steps, we are looking at a breakout time of between six and eight months, depending on whether iran has access to uranium enriched to just 3.5% or

access to 20% enriched uranium. dennis ross, one of america's preeminent diplomats and foreign policy analysts who has served under democratic and republican presidents alike, has said iran should retain no more than 10% of its centrifuges, which is, in essence, no more than 2,000. now, 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 six-month delay in iran's breakout ability enough? even when combined with a robust 20 years 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 suggest. 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's what iran's foreign minister has 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%." that's their foreign minister. what does president rouhani of

iran say? he was adamant in an interview on cnn 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." and on that program farid zakaria asked him, "so there will be no destruction of centrifuges, of economisting centrifuges?" president rouhani said "no, no, not at all." "not at all." now, in fact, iran's deputy foreign minister, abassi agarashi, said that iran would comply with the interim agreement by removing the connections between networks of centrifuge as that have been used to enrich uranium to 20% so

they can enrich only to 5%. and then he said -- and i quote -- "but these interconnections can be removed in one day and connected again in a day." that is not the type of safeguard that we need. clearly their intentions, at least in these negotiations, is to retain their capability notwithstanding the agreement. that's pretty clear to me. in january, president rouhani tweeted, "our relationship with the world is based on iranian's nation's interests. in geneva's agreement, world powers vunded to iran's national will." when this tweet was broadly reported on, president rouhani took it down. and in a speech when rouhani was leaving his post as iran's chief negotiator in 2005, he said --

quote -- "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. "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, we 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 a leadership position to understand the mind-set of the nationz are taking -- of the negotiations that are taking place. basically what president rouhani was saying, that he was able to get the west to not pursue sanctions and to ultimately not take any other action as iran

continued to march forward in its nuclear program. i find comments like that deeply troubling. i find the fact that even after an agreement was reached in november, the iranians reportedly fired a rocket into space to approve -- to improve, i should say, their ability to develop a long-range ballistic missile system. in an interview with reuters, u.s. missile defense expert riki electricalellison said, facilitation if there'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, and i quote, "tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas -- including uranium e enrichment, nuclear reactors and ballistic missiles -- from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. these technical advancements," he goes on, "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 military industrial complex would clearly show their will to build a nuclear bomb. the only thing that has thwarted that will are crippling sanctions, and the iranians have fought back every step of the baway with the international community get access to parch parching. 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 public. i know the administration will say, it is what president rouhani needs to do for his domestic awed yearnings but his deeds -- audience, but his deeds need to go beyond his words and they need to be verifiable. 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 and expert on the proliferation of atomic weapons, said that under the interim agreement, "the breakout time 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." which effectively means, without dismanagement ling currently -- dismantling currently installed

centrifuges, iran has a breakout tiesm six to eight weeks unless we demand real concessions." six to eight weeks and that figure is going to be very important, as i'll get to later, mr. president, because six to eight 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 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 in the implementing agreement suggests something far less than dismantlement. the clementing agreement says iran has to -- quote -- "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 moth bawled, not dismanagement led, or perhaps converted to a light water facility. 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 have brought them to a nuclear threshold state, is to use these negotiations to mathball its nuclear infrastructure program just long enough to undo the international sanctions regime. iran is insisting on keeping core elements of its program -- enrichment via arak heavy water facility, and 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 quukly revive their program sometime in the future. at the same time, iran is seeking to reverse the harsh international sanctions regime

against them. bottom line is, they -- if they get their way, they dismantle nothing, we gut the sanctions, and troubling signs have already appeared. since the 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%, 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. now, to the administration's credit, when we've raised this issue, they 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'm not sure that vladimir putin real slay going to be thwarted by -- really is going to be thwarted by such warnings. a coalition of france's largest companies already visiting tehran, iran welcomed more than a100 executives from france's biggest firms on monday, the most senior french trade mission in years sm. and since november, there have been 20-plus trade delegations from turkey, kazakhstan, india, austria and sweden. what's the result? iran's economy is recovering. the iranian rial had plummeted from 10,140rials to a dollar.

but it's begun to recover. as of january 29th, that late gone from 41,000 a single dollar to 25,000 ryals 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%, almost 2%, in 2014 and 2015. as mark dubo diewb vits testifid before the senate foreign relations committee this weerk the $7 billion in actual relief iran will definitively receive under the joint plan of action is very significant. because it comprises approximately 35% 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 tbhbillion in revenue that iran would have losted if we had not suspended sanctions on iran's crude oil exports. sanctions relief combined with the open-for-business sign that iran is posting is paying returns, and it seems to me that the sanctions regime that 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, any final deal, as inadequate as the one i've outlined, will end any pressure on iran for the foreseecial future. put -- for the for foreseeable

future. we need a policy that guarantees that iran does not acquire nuclear weapons capability peered, period. to understand how to proceed, we must ngd the facts. we need to put the negotiating into context. first, iran has a history of duplicity with respect to its nuclear program. use being past negotiations to cover up advances in its nuclear program and most startedly at the enrichment site buried deep in the mountain to prevent its discovery and potential destruction. why would you bury a facility so deep so that it could not be discovered if it was solely for the peaceful purposes you 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 graying tsimpleagreeing to locks

nuclear weapons program, walk away, and should they later walk away, they can simply unlock the door and continue their nuclear weapons program from where they are today. sounds a lot like north korea. let's not forget that president rouhani is the former negotiator boasted, "the day that we invited the three european ministers to the talks, only 10 centrifuges were spinning at natanz." 10. "we could not produce one gram of u4 or u6. we did not have the heavy water production. we could not produce yelllloy 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." 150, 240,000 today. -- 20,000 today. the simple truth is he admitted to deceiving the west.

given president row hasn't neese words on his country's nuclear weapons ambition, it seems to me that a good deal is not one equates with dismantling with math bawling. a good deal would prevent iran from being able to get back to work on its nuclear weapons program from where it left off. and, second, despite diplomatic and treaties to the iranians in recent years where hands were extended and secret talks were pursued, iran has grown its support in advocacy for terror. the history of iranian terror against u.s. citizens is lengthy and robust, grounded in the view that the united states is the great satan, and it's funding and support of hezbollah that has carried out attacks against american interests -- 241 american servicemen died in the 1983 american corps bombing. in recent years, we've traced responsibility for lethal

actions against american troops in iraq and afghanistan to whom? -- to iran, as well as the fortunately thwarted tac on the saudi door at a washington restaurant in 2011. today iran is actively sponsoring a proxy war in syria sending money, weapons and fighters on a weekly bases. simultaneously it's sponsoring attacks against sunnis in aircraft and promoting regional sectarian violence that could result in a broader regional contact. while smiling across the table they are simultaneously plotting in the background. with all this in mind, i believe in the wisdom of the prospective sanctions that 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 that ensuring 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 what got iran to the negotiating table is the only element of peaceful diplomacy that can keep it there and 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. problems and not conducting new u.s. missile tests with a range beyond 500 kilometers. mr. president, the legislation is not the problem. congress is not the problem. iran is the problem. and 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 deception surrounding its nuclear program and how this should inform our approach to reaching a comprehensive deal. to those who believe that if

negotiations do not result in a deal or if iran breaks the deal we can always impose new sanctions then, well, let me be clear if negotiations fail or if iran breaks the deal, we won't have time to pass new sanctions that would have a real consequence. new sanctions are not the 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 moment of iran's first breach of the joint plan of action or in the -- if they do not reach an ultimate agreement that is acceptable, there is a lag time of at least six months to bring those sanctions in line, and at least a year for real impact to be felt. now, that's been our history here. i've 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 that they can rearrange their engagements. and 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 vet short time iran -- 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 don't think we're going to have the time to impose new sanctions before iran can produce a nuclear weapon. everyone agrees that 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 nine months in 2013 down from 1.5 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%. there's no dispute or disagreement that it was the economic impact of sanctions that has brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. by passing those sanctions and having them in place long enough to be effective, but it 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 six months that they are ready to foreswear a 20-year effort, a 20-year effort to develop nuclear weapons? or are they as the supreme

leader stated seeking to beat us at the game of diplomacy, to negotiate with the devil to eliminate its evil and to retain their nuclear threshold and enriching abilities while degrading the sanctions regime? let's not forget it is the ayatollah. i know we're placing a lot of faith in president rouhani and the iranian foreign minister, but it's the ayatollah who holds the nuclear port tpoel i can't and his -- portfolio and his main goal is preservation of the regime. it is the ayatollah who gave the green light to rouhani to negotiate. why? because the sanctions were causing the ayatollah to be concerned about regime change taking place within iranian society due to the sanctions consequences on the iranian economy. now interestingly enough, who benefits from the sanctions relief? the ayatollah. in a reuters story with the

title, ham may -- khamenei's business empire gains from iran sanctions relief. it goes on to talk about that he controls a massive business which is now permitted to resume its exports. in an interview with reuters this week, a treasury department official estimated that iran would generate almost $1 billion in revenue -- $1 billion in revenue -- from the petrochemical exports over the next six months. who is the one who has a great deal of interest in the petrochemical sector? the ayatollah by his control of satad. i've worked on iran's nuclear issues for 20 years starting when i was a member of the house pressing sanctions to prevent iran from building the bashir

nuclear power plant and halt support for the uranium mining and enrichment programs. for a decade i was told that my concerns had no legitimate basis, that iran would never be able to bring the bashir plan online, 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 cost 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 existense.

t sees nuclear development as part of a strategy to make tehran the center of power throughout the region. that is why our allies and partners in the region, not just israelis but 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'm 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 will resolve our concerns about iranian weaponnizeation activities, that iran will advance centrifuge research. why is that important? because we heard testimony the more advanced the centrifuge, the less centrifuges you need and the quicker you can produce enriched uranium to be able to acquire that bomb and the increasingly less verifiable it is. so iran has to cease its advanced centrifuge research that the iaea gave access to the base, that iran will dismantle thousands of centrifuges or that

the -- and that the iranians should disclose the scope of their activity. it suggests that the resolution for the iraq heavy water reactors which can provide a quicker plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons may be put under iaea safeguards rather than require dismantling. it seems to me we don't have time under the testimony taken before the committee for iran to hedge and obfuscate. they've done ao pretty good job of that and that's what's 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 -- quote -- "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 military might to the extent that whafts former soviet union -- what was the former soviet union couldn't keep up pace. we need to negotiate with iran from a position of strength and then we should have no fear about any such negotiation. the concerns i've raised here are legitimate. they are not, as the president's press secretary has said, war mongering. 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 then in the house of representatives was in a small minority voting against the war in iraq when the overwhelming members of my colleagues and many members of this body were voting for the war.

to somehow be portrayed as a war mongerer. it is in my mind the use of sanctions which is a limited part of an arsenal of peaceful diplomacy tools that can get you to successful negotiations. at the end of the day, trying to keep the pressure on iran to completely satisfy the u.n.'s and the international community's demands for iran to halt and reverse and solicit 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 won't 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 won't negotiate with a gun to its head. well, i would suggest that it is iran that has put the potential of a nuclear gun to the world's head. so 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 war mongering. more pressure on iran does not in any way suggest that congress wants more, that iranians feel backed into a corner and will choose war over reason. so let's stop talking about war mongering. let's 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 really in congress. in fact, the agreement specifically states, and there's been a lot of talk about how we shouldn't consider any new sanctions even if they are prospective, which the legislation says nothing would happen until up to a year unless iran violates the interim agreement or fails to conclude agreement in a year. but if you 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 t. doesn't say the united states of america. it doesn't 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. and that's because the acknowledgement, 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 options off the table by insisting on

dismantling existing capability, not simply moth balling it. let me say, mr. president, i want diplomacy to work. that's why we worked so hard to get to the opportunity. i wanted to produce the results we all hope 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. this is not an opportunity to re-engage with tehran. i would urge everyone to look at the legislation i have drafted with my colleagues 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 year window to negotiate. that's not the way the legislation was originally intended, but they convinced us that 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 -- aren't serious about reaching a comprehensive deal. mr. president, i have heard the concerns of the administration. i know we share the same goals, and we have taken steps in the foreign relations committee in pursuit of those goals. we work with the administration to pass legislation to help reform the organization of american states. we have moved 129 -- more now with the last group of nominees that the administration has put forward. we have 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 chesapeake in syria.

we pass and the president signed it into law, the president's emergency plan for aids relief. we have worked with the embassy in benghazi. we have held two hearings on the rights of persons with disabilities. in all of these 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's time to put iranian rhetoric to the test. if we ought to take president rouhani's word when he said in davos last week that iran must not seek nuclear weapons, if that's true, the iranian government shouldn't have any problem with the obvious follow-up to that claim, starting with the verifiable dismantling of its illicit nuclear infrastructure. that's all the sanctions legislation does, and i don't

think we should settle for anything less. so let's be clear, i do not come to this floor in position. i come in comity. and -- in opposition, i come in comity. i come 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's what's most extraordinary about our government, and it echoes in the many debates that 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 in what we believe is in the best interests of this nation, and it is in that spirit that i come to the floor today. as general george marshall said, go right straight down the road to do what is best and do it frankly and without evasion. today i'm advocating what i believe is in our national interests, and to do so as frankly and as 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 eye -- capable iran. we have a difference of how to achieve them. we have an obligation to debate those differences and concerns, but i won't yield on a principle difference. it's our obligation to debate the issues, express our differences and outcomes and come to this 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 that iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. but by the same token, i think we need to be poised to ensure that we use the last element of

peaceful diplomacy, which is to ensure that there are sanctions that create a consequence to the regime so that 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, madam president, if we continue down this path and our sanctions erode and all we do is limit -- have safeguard notices, warning signs, we'll 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, and 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 signed by the president and that we believe prospectively can increase the pressure on iran to come to that peaceful conclusion so that 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. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i come here today because tomorrow is the former start of the winter olympics in sochi, russia, and 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 and we pray for their safety. we have all read media reports of the potential for attacks. we pray that 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 that -- that things will go well there. and let me just say at the outset, olympics should never be politicized. i hope that these are not either. and so my comments today are not about the olympics per se but they -- i do think it's an important time given where they are occurring to take a moment to reflect on the nature and on

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. now, we've all heard the debates about some of the more extreme examples of intolerance that exists within russia, particularly as a result of president vladimir putin and his government, but i wanted to take a moment to describe where i think the relations between the united states and russia stands and in particular how russia views itself, their government, i should say in the world. at the outset when i talk about russia or china for that matter, we are talking about the government leaders, not the people. in fact, we know in both of those countries, especially in russia, in both countries, china as well but many other countries, there are people who do not like the direction their political leadership is taking them. in fact, i would say in countries like russia and china, it might be the majority of people who strongly disagree with the direction that it's so-called leaders are taking them. we talk about here is our relationship with their

governments and in this case our relationship with vladimir putin and the decisions he has made. now, the best way to understand the situation with russia is primarily a president who has nationalistic tendencies in putin who wants russia to somehow reclaim its glory days of world prominence. he's concluded the best way to do that is be antagonistic and hostile toward the united states. part of that plan, by the way, 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. so you have two stunning examples of that over the last few years. the first is the republic of georgia. which they invaded a few years ago and even now 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 that they claim they

need for a security buffer. it's completely outrageous. but that's happening with very little attention on the international stage. the other thing is to see what's happening in ukraine. and how they used the threat of noncooperation economically and even subterfuge clickly to try to -- click think to try to force the ukraine a deal -- to reject a deal to integrate with the european union and be part of this new thing the russian government is trying to create. and they have felt the need to be an tag knit nistic toward the united states you but in the process of doing that they have been antagonistic toward the cause of human rights and of world peace and there are some stunning examples. certainly within russia we have seen the targeting and the owe are presentation of everything from a rock band to journalists. we know the story of sergio mag

it magnitsky who was investigating official corruption. we saw that happen with him. we saw who they line up with on the international stage. they are perhaps other than iran and perhaps equal with iran the most important supporter of assad and of what he's doing in syria. the slaughter of innocent civilians, over 100,000 people dead, 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've taken towards iran. they not have 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 regards to preventing a nuclear iran. and so on issue after issue, we

see this russian government lining itself up diametrically opposed not just to the interests of the united states but to the interests of the cause of world peace. how could you possibly -- i understand that the situation is complicated but how could you possibly express yourself to be such a strong and blind ally of a killer, of a murderer, of a criminal like assad? there are problems in those rebel groups, too. there are some terrorists involved in that, in fact, unfortunately, it appears they've grown in predominance among the rebellion. it's not an easy issue to confront but at a minimum would you expect that a country that believes in human rights and the dignity of all people would at a minimum add their voice to the condemnation of what's occurring in syria. the conduct of the assad government. instead, they have been involved in trying to pursue

ridiculous conspiracy theories like the notion somehow the cem attacks that occurred there were not conducted by assad and his regime. so beyond those things what they've done at home and what they've done abroad, what have they done directly toward the united states? let's talk about what they've done towards their neighbors and the constant threats on their neighbors. and in some instances the willingness to carry it out by invading the republic of georgia. then, of course, you turn to their relationship with us, what have they done? a couple of things bear watching. the first, is what they've done with their weapons systems. they continue to invest in extraordinary amount of money for a country going through the economic challenges they're confronting to build up their conventional weapons capabilities. again, sending naval forces to all different parts of the world trying to flex some muscle. it's not as powerful as the soviet union but they're trying to project power in that way. and usually they find places to project power that they know

would somehow challenge the strategic interests of the united states. and then last week we read in "the new york times" that there is evidence that they may be in violation of an arms control agreement. in the face of all of these things, the initial attitude of this administration was we need to reset policy towards russia. and understand what was behind that idea. what was behind that idea was the notion that the reason why we didn't have a good relationship with putin and with russia and the russian government is because the u.s., because the previous president, george w. bush, was too abrasive. by the way, this is not just russia, this is kind of a theory they applied all over the world. and if we could just reset that relationship, if we could just be more cooperative with them, show them we were more willing to talk and be open-minded, somehow that would affect their behavior. let me tell you what putin and their government did.

they did what any another former k.g.b. agent would do. they took what you offered them and kept doing what they wanted. they took whatever concessions you were putting on the table and kept doing whatever they wanted. what's stunning to me is not just the administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the reset policy has not worked, but in some instances their desire to double down on it. the president continues to talk about additional reductions in strategic weapons vis-a-vis the russians. and yet last week we hear as i just said a moment ago, that they're probably in violation of an existing agreement. we've allowed them to convince us not to pursue antimissile technologies or advanced -- additional antimissile technologies and defense systems in eastern europe. our allies, by the way, look at

us and say, well, what's going on? it adds to this air of instability, it adds to the questions that now exist, it adds to the notion we have become an unreliable ally in the world because other countries are watching this as well and they're taking note. this is the situation that we face now. and i think because the olympics are in russia the whole world is about to see it. now, for example, we can't say for sure this has anything to do with the government but last night, read a report in "the wall street journal" 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. now, again do we know that was the russian government or not? we don't know for sure but here's what we do know -- that seems to be a recurring issue there. the sort of surveillance state where the -- opposition is oppressed and people are

watched, political opponents can be arrested and jailed or exiled. the russian government is starting to look more and more every day in its attitude like the former soviet union in its behavior. i think we have a right to be concerned about it. when i took to the -- come to the floor and talk about these issues and my colleagues do, this is not because we want confrontation. on the contrary. we hope to avoid all 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 when behavior like this and attitudes like this go unaddressed, when your potential adversary senses weakness and insecurity and indecisiveness, it invites them to be even more aggressive and it invites them to miscalculate. and so i do believe that while 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, we should not under any circumstances, betray or 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 your concessions

and they will keep doing whatever they want. and so i hope that as a part of this week's and the next couple weeks and this olympics that we as policymakers with all the issues happening in our country and all the challenges we face around the world, i hope we will take more time to truly exactly the -- examine the nature of our relationship with russia and what it will mean. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i come to the floor once again today to talk about manufacturing jobs and their importance for rebuilding the american middle class, their importance for our economy, their importance for our future. last week president obama

delivered his state of the union address before a joint session of this congress and talked about what we can and should do together to invest in america's workers to spur job creation and expand economic opportunity. he said -- and i quote -- "what i believe unites the people of this nation is the simple profound belief of opportunity for all, the simple notion if you work hard and take responsibility you can and should get ahead. opportunity is lee who we are and the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise." madam president, i couldn't agree more. at a basic level, one thing we need to do is to put a floor undermete the struggle -- underneath 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 remaining sadly more scarce than they should be in our economy 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 delawarans 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 life line 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're searching for jobs we should make sure they can put food on their tables and keep their families sound. one delawaran i've heard from who relies on this life line is raymond from newark. raymond was laid off last april from his job in a steel mill. he's not sitting at home based on unemployment benefits, he's not showing dependency as some vo is have suggested here. he's averaged more than 30 job applications each and every week and has four children depending on him, one in college with tuition to pay and he wrote to

me saying my job search is more than just finding a job, it's searching to make an honest living. raymond, to you and to the more than a million americans who rely on decent work to give meaning to their lives, to give support to their families, to give purpose and opportunity to their children and their future, we can and should do more, not just by extending unemployment insurance, not by increasing the minimum wage but building the middle class of this country through work together. folks like raymond have worked hard and paid their taxes, they've earned the opportunity when they need it to get unemployment insurance. that's what 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 a job in a steel mill to a plant that's open and has a job that needs to be filled. madam president, throughout our history broad-based growth and job creation have ensured

economic opportunity was there for millions upon millions of americans across several generations, anyone who was willing and able 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 work force, in our people through public education, through the g.i. bill, through access to higher education, we've been a country where anyone was willing to work could make it if they combined their work ethic and talents with the skills they needed. during world war ii and the post-war boom, manufacturing was an economic backbone for 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 and a brighter future and you can have a secure retirement tomorrow. that's the essence of the american middle class. the basic opportunity that manufacturing provided, those strong and stable rungs from

which americans could pull themselves up the ladder of opportunity here and was the heart of america's economic engine, was the glue that held communities together, has over the past few decades 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've heard many argue manufacturing's no longer an industry, no longer 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 that we're relegated to inevitably lose what's left of our manufacturing in a race to the bottom. the suggestion's been made in

some sectors that we should thrive with service and high-skilled research and development, 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's 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 for the local economy, where manufacturing jobs provide more of a compounding benefit than any other sector. some suggest that we just can't compete because our labor standards, our environmental protections, our wages are too high. but look to germany and europe and you can see this just isn't true. they have higher labor standards, they have higher environmental protections than we do and yet more than double the percentage of their economy, percentage of their g.d.p. is manufacturing because their government, their education sector, their private sector work in close harmony to do the things that we need to do.

since manufacturing -- manufacturers invest the most private-sector r&d, where there's manufacturing, there's also a wealth of high-skilled reseven work. that's one of the -- research work. that's one of the other benefits of manufacturing. over the long-term, it's hard to have one without the other. so as our manufacturing base has moved offshore, we've been at risk of losing our research ba base. but just in the last few years, there's been a dynamic that's 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've actually been regaining ground in manufacturing. i'm convinced that if we want to rebuild an economy that's die nam and i can that grows -- 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's true is 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 task 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 that workers weren't expected to do 30 years ago today are a minimum requirement. 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 our universities have to be tightly integrated into a skilled training system that is demand driven rather than give people training and pray that somehow they'll find their way to an appropriate employer. that's why i was so encouraged

when president obama placed such an emphasis on workplace skills training and manufacturing in his state of the union. 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 the steel mill in claymont is claid out, he can have -- laid off, committee have the ability to retool his abilities and move right into an open and available manufacturing job. a recent study showed there were more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs, high-skill, high-wage manufacturing 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's just february. it's too early in this year for us to give up on the possibility of passing bipartisan legislation together, and i

think more than ever because of the message it sends domestically and international, we have to find a way to work together, to make progress on the critical issue of manufacturing skills and to find things we can do together to grow our economy and rebuild our middle class. that's why i've been working so hard with my colleagues on the manufacturing jobs for america campaign near the senate. manufacturing -- here in the senate. manufacturing jobs for america is a campaign to build support for good manufacturing legislation that democrats and republicans can agree on. so far we've 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 modern america's modern work force skills, as i've spoken to, fighting for a more global level playing field and opening export markets to america's manufacturers of all sizes, medium and small

businesses, have been growing their export but we could grow so much more and that would sustain the growth in manufacturing. third, making it easier for manufacturers to access capital to invest in the r&d i spoke to just a moment ago. and, fourth, ensuring a coordinated government-wide effort, 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, access to capital all happenmen happen. madam president, adapting our economy to the realities of a new era is a challenge we've struggled with for more than a generation, yet figuring out thousand realize an economy whose growth is both strong and more equitable, when it's dynamic and creative, globally competitive and has a broad middle class, that 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. and if we want america to be as strong in the 21st century as it was in 209th, we need american -- 20th, we need american manufacturing. let's work together and get this done. i want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their partnership, their interest, their work on this and i so much look forward, madam president, to working together in the weeks ahead to prove to the american people we can make bipartisan progress on manufacturing. thank you. and with that, i yield the floor.

mr. murphy: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. you know, it's fascinating to watch the headlines change over the course of the day after the c.b.o. report on the status of the implementation of health care was released. at first the headlines flarkd thaheadlines --flashed that thet said that the health care reform law was going to cost 2 1/2 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 c.b.o. report, they discovered the truth. they discovered the fact that the c.b.o. report actually says that the me and going to grow because of the health care law. and to the extent that there are reductions in the hours that people work, it's going to be because individuals are now no longer required to work simply because they need to get health care, that they can make decisions about what they want do with their life, the kind of work they want to do and the amount of time they want devote to it not simply because they are job locked due to health care insecurity. and so, madam president, i wanted to come down 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 family. and 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, connecticut. and i was in the pool splashing around with my son and a guy not more than a few years older than me came across the pool and tapped me on the shoulder. he said, i'm really sorry to interrupt but i just wanted to say thank you. and i said, well, that's nice, thank you for what? and he said, i wanted to say thank you for passing the health care reform law because i have a little son, too, and he's got a congenital heart defect and we spend a lot of money trying to take care of his illness.

and first the health care bill is just going to save us a lot of money. but he said that's not really why i'm so thankful for what you did. he said, what i'm truly thankful for is the fact that i can rest easily at night now knowing that my son's life, that his career won't be dictated by his illness. that my son now can 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. as 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 that came with those high insurance costs. and then once you found a 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 that they knew could grow, that they knew could result in dozens of employees being hired, because they couldn't leave their existing job and the insurance that it provided for them and for their families. that's what the c.b.o. report says. the c.b.o. report says that to the extent that there are going to be less howar hours worked, s because individuals are no longer tied to their job because of their need to get health care

benefits. that's the real story of the c.b.o. report. in fact, the c.b.o. 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's economic growth. that's not economic contraction. now, madam president, this is a really simple chart and i'm not going to claim that the numbers in it are a reflection simply of the legislation that we passed, but for all my republican colleagues who rushed down to either the floor or to the cable news networks to decry the c.b.o. report and who judge 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 decade 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. 8.1 million jobs. now, nobody's satisfied with the pace of job growth but nobody can say that the passage of the affordable care act has hurt jobs. now, anecdotally, anyone can bring one or two stories to the floor suggesting that an individual businessperson decided to not hire someone because of the affordable care act, but the c.b.o. report also says this. it sthais in c.b.o.'s judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the a.c.a. that's a specific talkingpoint that opponent after of the a.c.a. brings out in the debate. because you have a requirement to provide for full-time employees but not for part-time imleerks you're going to see -- employees, you're going to see

millions of full-time jobs being eliminated and put into part-time employment. in c.b.o.'s judgment, ness no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the a.c.a. they say that 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. that's what the c.b.o. report says. but, madam president, the news is even better, because we are also getting definitive results on the amount of money that we are spending as taxpayers when it comes to our health care budget. but hears here' here's a simplet shows what you the current law w projection was. this builds out the trend line to 2025. it is not necessary to predict

what they'll be in 25. pretty quickly, the actual average annual growth rate of mechanic is going to come in at 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 that we are going to be saving, on average, $250 billion a year. let me say that again. 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 justness medicare spending because we are starting to build a health care system that, a, focuses on prevention, every medicare participant now gets fry wellness visits, and a system that rewards outcomes rather than volume, that rewards

quality health care rather than just lots of health care. and so it's time that we start talking about the true economic impact of the affordable care act. for all of the political and rhetorical bluster, c.b.o. tells us that the economy will grow because of the act, that full-time employment will not turn into part-time employment, and to the extent that there are less hours worked in this country, as the c.b.o. report clearly says, that's 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 -- not based on whether or not they can get health care. madam president, i just want to leave you with one story which illustrates the decisions that are 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, connecticut, just wrote this. and i'll read his words verbatim. "i am a small business 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 peds 1,552 a month to cover myself and my 17-year-old son. my son was injured in a fall while playing high school football and required surgery on his shoulder. my dblg for the surgery was $3,000. paying for health insurance and medical bills has been a constant struggle. that's why a week ago i decided to check out access health ctification that's our,changes in condone see if i could get help going afford. after i entered my information on the web site, 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 1." here's the best part. "this is far better that inever thought it would be. i was worried that health insurance would put me out of business after all those years. but now i feel like i can keep my business going. i may even hire a new employee. i want to say thank you to everybody from the state and federal level who has made accesshealth-ct a reality. don't believe the rumors. check it out yourself. i am so glad that i did." don't believe the rumors. don't believe the quick-snap headlines that get written when a complicated economic report comes out, as it did yesterday. because if you read beyond the headlines, you will find out that the economic evidence that the budget evidence is saying over and over again 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 dlamples i yield the floor. -- billions of dollars. i yield the floor. madam president, i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise gene today -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call be virkted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise again today to urge a vote in the united states senate to confirm andrew lugar to be minnesota's u.s. attorney. for two and a half 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 a minnesota u.s.

attorney and then also as acting director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. over the summer, as the president is aware, the senate confirmed todd jones as director of the a.t.f., leaving the minnesota u.s. attorney's position open. even before the confirmation of todd jones this summer, senator franken, upon the recommendation of our bipartisan u.s. attorney advisory committee, had already recommended andrew lugar, a respected litigator and former assistant u.s. attorney, to fill the position. that was 199 days ago. in november, president obama nominated andrew law gar to become the new -- lugar to become the new u.s. attorney and the judiciary committee approved his nomination unanimously on january 9. it is time that we do the right thing by quickly confirming andrew lugar to make sure that minnesota has its highest law enforcement officer in place.

i would also note that there is an opening in the iowa u.s. attorney's office. the judiciary committee also unanimously approved the recommendation -- the president's nomination for that position, and that person is also awaiting confirmation, and in fact i learned today that he is in one city and his family is in another city in iowa. they would like to be united, and that nomination is also pending. i want to thank senator grassl grassley, who has supported our nominee, as i have supported his in iowa, and 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. lugar's nomination. the position of u.s. attorney, madam president, 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 that 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 -- quote -- "a person learn he haded 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 being as in which the united states shall be concerned. the u.s. attorney is a position so necessary, madam president, that president zachary taylor appointed hengery moss, a name somewhat lost in history, to the post within two days of minnesota becoming a state. m two days. now minnesota, as i not noted, s been waiting for a full-time u.s. to enfor two and a half 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. he was appointed by president bill clinton ands, and senator blumenthal was appointed to u.s. attorney for connecticut by president carter. other colleagues have been assistant u.s. attorneys, and my guess is when they were assistant u.s. attorneys, they worked for their boss; they had a full-time u.s. attorney in their offices. assistant ution attorneys included in the u.s. 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 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 a republicans and democrats alike were confirmed within a day of when they passed out of the judiciary committee. that would be half of them, the u.s. attorneys appointed by democratic presidents and republican presidents. one-fourth were confirmed in fact the very same day, and during this time frame they were confirmed within an average of eight days of being passed out of committee. iit has now been 28 days since mr. lugar was approved by the judiciary committee. compare that to thomas hove

hovelfinger who was appointed by president george bush on september 4, 2001. he was confidence on september 13. his entire confirmation process took only 11 days. mr. lugar was nominated 77 days ago. that's seven times longer. in 1998 the senate confirmed todd jones within two weeks of his nomination. the senate has a history of filling this important position quickly. nominees have not been used as pawns in some kind of disagreement over issues. they have simply been confirmed. we have simply gotten it done. the quick action by presidente lore and the speed with which the senate has confirmed the past u.s. attorneys for minnesota shows 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 people that work for the u.s. attorney in minnesota the

over 100 employees, they don't run for office. they don't run as democrats or republicans. and we don't even know what their political parties are. they deserve a boss in their office to take this position, which has been filled historically, 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 more unanimous 100 people who work in that office. the men and women in the minnesota u.s. attorney's office emblemlyify the professionalism, high ethical standards and unwaivingering commitment to the rule of lauder 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

woirveghts violent criminals and 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 won a conviction in the $3.65 billion ponzi case, the second biggest ponzi scheme in united states 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? an ongoing terrorist negotiation that has led to charges for three people aiding the terrorist organization al-shabaab. if you ask anyone at the f.b.i., including the f.b.i. director who was quoted in a