A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014. In my view, this legislation is flawed in many respects, and that being the case, I intend to vote against it.

First and foremost, it needs to be said that the fact that we are even having a debate about extending unemployment benefits is unfortunate. Throughout the Obama administration, our Nation has been plagued with lackluster job growth, lower and lower rates of labor force participation, and high levels of long-term unemployment. Indeed, under this President it has been harder to find a job than at any other point in our Nation's recent history.

But, as has been said before, these are just symptoms of a much larger problem. The plight of the long-term unemployed--which this bill is supposed to address--is not the major problem facing America today. Instead, the major problem is that despite the best efforts of many of us in Congress, our government hasn't done enough to foster economic growth. In fact, more often than not in recent years government has stood in the way. It has been an impediment.

We are now more than 5 years into this administration, and it is becoming increasingly clear that President Obama does not have a plan to address these problems. True enough, he has proposals that would expand the government and redistribute income but nothing resembling a plan to promote growth in the private sector or to actually put people back to work. Many of the President's redistribution schemes end up costing labor supply and jobs, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made clear with respect to ObamaCare and the President's proposed minimum wage hike.

Growth is what we should be debating, ideas and proposals that would actually grow our economy and help people find jobs. But instead we are here once again to debate an extension of the emergency unemployment compensation program, or EUC.

Let's talk about the EUC program for just a few minutes.

The proponents of this legislation have told us that extending ``temporary'' unemployment benefits is vital to our economy, but I think the facts tell a much different story. Between July 2008 when the program started and December 2013 when it expired, we spent roughly $265 billion on EUC benefits. That is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars on a temporary Federal benefit program. For much of that time the program paid up to 73 weeks of Federal benefits, amounting to a record total of 99 available weeks of unemployment benefits when you add the State and Federal benefits together. All told, we have paid EUC benefits for 66 months, which is 2\1/2\ years longer than any similar emergency unemployment program in U.S. history.

In other words, EUC is a program with a long track record, and when we look at the record, we see that it hasn't had the positive economic impact proponents of the program often claim it has. Indeed, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits we have already paid under this program, we have suffered through the worst jobs recovery in our Nation's history, and the long-term unemployed have suffered the most.

There is evidence to suggest this program has actually made the recovery worse. For example, according to recent research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, ``unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.''

So while some Democrats have claimed that extending unemployment benefits is the best way to create jobs, the facts certainly tell a different story.

I am not going to condemn anyone for wanting to extend a helping hand to those who continue to face difficulties under the Obama economy, but if we are going to debate yet another extension of Federal unemployment benefits, we should at the very least get our facts straight.

So with all this in mind--the cost of the EUC program and the questionable benefits--let's take a look at the legislation before us now.

One thing I would like to point out is that with this legislation we have once again abandoned regular order and bypassed the committee process entirely. I have remarked on this problem here on the floor several times before. When we ignore the traditional role of the Senate committees, we short-circuit the legislative process, and more often than not we end up with an inferior product. This bill is certainly no exception.

We learned this last month when the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, NASWA, sent a letter to the Senate outlining its concern with this bill. Chief among these concerns was that it would be extremely difficult for States to retroactively pay unemployment insurance claims, as this bill would require. Indeed, according to NASWA, backdating EUC claims ``would make it nearly impossible'' to apply individual State work search requirements, which is a key factor in determining eligibility for unemployment insurance. In addition, the letter indicated that there would likely be a large increase in new EUC overpayments as a result of this retroactivity requirement.

Due to these concerns and others, NASWA concluded that it would take States up to 3 months to implement this legislation, which is problematic because although the bill before us is technically for a 5- month extension, only 2 months of benefits would be paid prospectively. In other words, many States would not be ready to implement this legislation by the time it expires.

This is more than a glitch or a bump in the road; it is State workforce agencies--the very people who will have to implement this legislation on a day-to-day basis--telling the Senate that this bill is unworkable. According to the NASWA letter, there are a number of States that would consider not participating in the program due to these problems and the short time available to address them.

Labor Secretary Perez sent his own letter in response to NASWA's statement, promising to help States address these concerns. Oddly enough, however, this letter was very short on actual details as to how that assistance would be offered.

All of that said, these are the kinds of problems I was talking about--problems which can be addressed if committees are given an opportunity to operate. Had the committee had an opportunity to vet this legislation, we could have also fully examined the offsets my colleagues are using to pay for this EUC extension. These are also problematic.

The main pay-for in this bill is the use of what is called pension smoothing, which is little more than a budget gimmick but an especially pernicious budget gimmick when repeated. It has the potential to do real harm to pension plan funding levels, threatening the future retirement security of American workers.

Since the great recession of 2008, pension plans have struggled to regain their footing financially. The drastic drop in interest rates forced many plans to dramatically increase their pension contributions to keep pace. In 2012, at the historic low point for interest rates, Congress essentially gave pension plans 4 years of funding relief to get through the worst period of low interest rates. Congress did this by allowing pensions to fund their plans as if interest rates were higher than they really were.

But we can't indefinitely pretend that interest rates are artificially high and contribution levels artificially low. Reality still matters. The reality is that, although still low by historical standards, interest rates are no longer at rock bottom and pension funding needs to gradually adjust to market rates just as current law provides.

Put simply, we should avoid additional pension smoothing because it permits lower pension funding, and poor pension funding is bad pension policy. Pension funding remains a serious concern, and this is not the time to make it easier to underfund pensions. Doing so is worse than just kicking a can down the road. This can of pension underfunding will explode on American workers in the form of underfunded pensions that will somehow have to be rescued either through painful cuts in benefits, much higher PBGC premiums, or taxpayer-funded bailouts. There is no other way around it.

The other major offset in this bill is the extension of customs user fees. This is also problematic. Traditionally speaking, offsets in the trade space are reserved for legislation that actually extends trade programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences or the African Growth and Opportunity Act. If we start using these offsets in other areas, we won't have anything left over when it comes to extending these important programs.

Both of these offsets--pension smoothing and customs user fees--fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, just like the underlying UI extension. Once again, had the committee been given an opportunity to consider these issues, it is likely that these offsets would not have been used.

As we can see, there are a number of problems with this bill that could have been considered and addressed had the Finance Committee been allowed to do its work. And it should have been allowed to do its work. Other problems could be addressed if there were a fair and open amendment process here on the floor. Sadly, it doesn't appear that we are going to get that either as the Senate Democratic leadership appears poised to once again try to force a major piece of legislation through the Senate without giving the minority an opportunity to offer amendments.

Before our next vote on this legislation, I think we will see a number of amendments filed, many of which would likely improve the bill. Others would address the more pressing need to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

I personally have amendments that would do both. For example, I have an amendment that would repeal the ObamaCare tax on medical devices, which enjoys bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and would prevent further job losses in one of our most important U.S. industries.

I have another amendment that would repeal the ObamaCare employer mandate. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would deem this out of bounds, but they shouldn't. After all, the Obama administration seems pretty intent on delaying the employer mandate; it has already been delayed for 2 years. If the mandate is that harmful to implement, why don't we do away with it altogether and ensure that it doesn't cost us any more jobs and further requests for unemployment benefits?

One amendment I have would help to ensure that the retroactive EUC benefits do not threaten program integrity. Specifically, it would require States, as part of their EUC agreements, to certify that paying retroactive benefits will not lead to an increase in fraud or overpayments.

These are just some of the amendments I may offer to this bill, and all of them, in my opinion, would be improvements. But it doesn't look as though we are going to be able to offer amendments in the greatest deliberative body in the world--and I am saying that pretty sarcastically at this time. I know many of my Republican colleagues have amendments they would like to offer as well. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to have a real debate about these issues. Instead, they are content to let the majority leader fill the tree and block any and all Republican amendments from coming up for a vote. One can only wonder what they are afraid of. Presumably the majority has the votes to defeat any amendments the minority wants to offer. Where is the harm in having a real debate? Where is the harm in having an open amendment process? I can only conclude they are worried that some of the votes they would have to take would be difficult politically. Indeed, preventing difficult votes seems to be priority No. 1 for the current Senate majority.

At this point, it appears they have the votes to pass the bill. I assume we will be through with this process this week. Yet, while the Senate debate over unemployment insurance may be coming to an end, I can only conclude that the process failures we are seeing in this Chamber will continue as we move on to the next item of business, which is, in my opinion, very unfortunate.

This week's debate over EUC is just the latest example of what is wrong with the Senate these days. Sadly, it doesn't look as if things are going to get better under the current leadership. These are important issues. We really need to let the Senate operate the way it always has, and let's quit playing these games of power play.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations.

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this?

It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.

In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter.

It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat.

The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States.

I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina.

This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States.

I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law

so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist.

I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place.

There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason.

On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis-- what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran.

After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend.

Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner.

The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.''

It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran.

The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries.

In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President.

I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran.

One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.''

I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about ObamaCare and what I have long believed is a march to rationing of health care.

The ObamaCare bill and the accompanying regulations now tower over 7 feet--1 foot above where I stand--when stacked together, and they have provision after provision that will deny patients the care they want, the care they need to ensure they get the life-sustaining and lifesaving treatments that are best for them.

These rationing elements in ObamaCare have been documented by a recent report of the National Right to Life Committee's Powell Center for Medical Ethics. This study is entitled ``The Affordable Health Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States.''

Perhaps most egregious about ObamaCare is that it directly inserts the Federal Government into the personal lives of Americans, their families, and their doctors.

We all know about the individual mandate that coerces people into purchasing a product they may not want by threatening to tax them. And I have often spoken about my personal nemesis in the rationing board that I am going to bring up--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. This is a board made up of 18--15 voting and 3 nonvoting--all unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay and what must go in Medicare coverage. They will decide which treatments and services will be covered and which will not. And there is no accountability whatsoever. It would, in fact, take a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate to undo any of their actions. As a result, this board diminishes our constitutional responsibility.

This President has already raided half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, and then he gave himself the ability to go after even more Medicare dollars without any accountability. This, my friends, is frightening. It is irresponsible. But there is more.

It is conceivable that the Independent Payment Advisory Board won't just limit Medicare access; it will also propose ways for the Federal Government to limit what Americans of all ages are allowed to spend out of their own private money--not taxpayer funds--to save the lives and health of their families.

Shocking but true: ObamaCare tells bureaucrats on the board to make sure we are not even allowed to keep up with medical inflation. Further, it is conceivable that the board will suggest ways for the Federal Government to impose so-called quality and efficiency standards on doctors and hospitals with the purpose of limiting the health care we can get.

So here is the deal: If a doctor dares to give her patient treatment beyond what those standards allow, the doctor will be punished. That doctor will be excluded from all of the health insurance plans qualified under ObamaCare. Unbelievably, under ObamaCare, Washington bureaucrats can dictate one uniform standard of health care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend out of their own money to save their own lives.

But the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn't the only rationing provision in the ObamaCare or Affordable Healthcare Act. If only. ObamaCare also has a Cadillac tax for having too much health care coverage. Patients all across America need to know there is a provision of ObamaCare that punishes them and their employer if they provide coverage that is above the arbitrary limits imposed by the Federal Government. This is an additional 40-percent tax on individuals who need more expensive treatments and coverage oftentimes essential to battle life-threatening illnesses. Even worse, these ObamaCare limits were drafted in a way they will never be able to keep up with medical inflation. This means insurance companies will have to cut back even more on patient treatments and services or people will be forced to pay an incredibly higher tax.

What about those individuals who are already suffering from life- threatening illnesses who really need the care? This is why we should pass the legislation I am offering.

Do Americans know that there is a provision in ObamaCare that lets the Federal Government--not them and not their employer--decide if coverage is ``excessive or unjustified''? This isn't government- subsidized coverage in the exchanges, nor is it the federally funded Medicare and Medicaid coverage. This is their own and their employees' private money--their money. The Federal Government is given the authority to decide if the way it is being spent is excessive or unjustified, and they are going to do it through the provision of ObamaCare that allows the Obama administration to review premiums by pressuring private insurance companies to stop offering coverage or face adverse government consequences.

So far we have talked about the private coverage, but there are also similar provisions for seniors' coverage. It wasn't bad enough that the President diverted one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare to begin with, he also granted the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to deny private market-offered coverage for services and treatments that could save your life. Before ObamaCare these private market programs such as the prescription drug program and Medicare Advantage could allow seniors to add their own money to purchase coverage they want and need beyond what the government will pay. ObamaCare allows Washington bureaucrats to deny that choice.

Folks, this isn't how we should be treating our seniors. It isn't how we should be treating people who need access to life-saving treatment and services. This isn't how we should be treating anybody.

That is why today I come to the floor to introduce the Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act of 2014. My legislation repeals these provisions that allow the Federal Government to intercede on very personal decisions. It repeals the provisions that authorize rationing boards to deny patients the ability to access the care that may save their lives.

This legislation is relatively simple and should be supported by all of my colleagues to address some of the egregious changes from the Affordable Care Act that patients should be aware of but that many don't even know exist. This is down the road. We are trying to stay ahead of the curve. That is why I am introducing this legislation.

This legislation builds upon my Restoring Access to Medication Act. This bill repeals the provision of ObamaCare limiting a patient's right to purchase over-the-counter products with their own money. It is also a continuation of my efforts that I discussed when introducing the Four Rationers Repeal Act many times on this floor. It repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It repeals the euphemistically but misleadingly named Innovation Center. It repeals the changes made to the Preventive Services Task Force and makes sure any comparative effectiveness research is used by the doctor and the patient, not coverage providers or CMS, to determine the best care for patients, not simply try to lower costs.

I really believe that in order to protect this all-important doctor- patient relationship we need to repeal and most importantly to replace ObamaCare with the real reforms that work for Kansans and all Americans. However, until we can accomplish full repeal we at least need to ensure we are protecting the life-saving care and treatment that Americans need by attacking the elements of ObamaCare that ration care, and passing the Repeal Rationing and Support of Life Act of 2014. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and take the steps necessary to protect the lives of their constituents.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about ObamaCare and what I have long believed is a march to rationing of health care.

The ObamaCare bill and the accompanying regulations now tower over 7 feet--1 foot above where I stand--when stacked together, and they have provision after provision that will deny patients the care they want, the care they need to ensure they get the life-sustaining and lifesaving treatments that are best for them.

These rationing elements in ObamaCare have been documented by a recent report of the National Right to Life Committee's Powell Center for Medical Ethics. This study is entitled ``The Affordable Health Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States.''

Perhaps most egregious about ObamaCare is that it directly inserts the Federal Government into the personal lives of Americans, their families, and their doctors.

We all know about the individual mandate that coerces people into purchasing a product they may not want by threatening to tax them. And I have often spoken about my personal nemesis in the rationing board that I am going to bring up--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. This is a board made up of 18--15 voting and 3 nonvoting--all unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay and what must go in Medicare coverage. They will decide which treatments and services will be covered and which will not. And there is no accountability whatsoever. It would, in fact, take a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate to undo any of their actions. As a result, this board diminishes our constitutional responsibility.

This President has already raided half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, and then he gave himself the ability to go after even more Medicare dollars without any accountability. This, my friends, is frightening. It is irresponsible. But there is more.

It is conceivable that the Independent Payment Advisory Board won't just limit Medicare access; it will also propose ways for the Federal Government to limit what Americans of all ages are allowed to spend out of their own private money--not taxpayer funds--to save the lives and health of their families.

Shocking but true: ObamaCare tells bureaucrats on the board to make sure we are not even allowed to keep up with medical inflation. Further, it is conceivable that the board will suggest ways for the Federal Government to impose so-called quality and efficiency standards on doctors and hospitals with the purpose of limiting the health care we can get.

So here is the deal: If a doctor dares to give her patient treatment beyond what those standards allow, the doctor will be punished. That doctor will be excluded from all of the health insurance plans qualified under ObamaCare. Unbelievably, under ObamaCare, Washington bureaucrats can dictate one uniform standard of health care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend out of their own money to save their own lives.

But the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn't the only rationing provision in the ObamaCare or Affordable Healthcare Act. If only. ObamaCare also has a Cadillac tax for having too much health care coverage. Patients all across America need to know there is a provision of ObamaCare that punishes them and their employer if they provide coverage that is above the arbitrary limits imposed by the Federal Government. This is an additional 40-percent tax on individuals who need more expensive treatments and coverage oftentimes essential to battle life-threatening illnesses. Even worse, these ObamaCare limits were drafted in a way they will never be able to keep up with medical inflation. This means insurance companies will have to cut back even more on patient treatments and services or people will be forced to pay an incredibly higher tax.

What about those individuals who are already suffering from life- threatening illnesses who really need the care? This is why we should pass the legislation I am offering.

Do Americans know that there is a provision in ObamaCare that lets the Federal Government--not them and not their employer--decide if coverage is ``excessive or unjustified''? This isn't government- subsidized coverage in the exchanges, nor is it the federally funded Medicare and Medicaid coverage. This is their own and their employees' private money--their money. The Federal Government is given the authority to decide if the way it is being spent is excessive or unjustified, and they are going to do it through the provision of ObamaCare that allows the Obama administration to review premiums by pressuring private insurance companies to stop offering coverage or face adverse government consequences.

So far we have talked about the private coverage, but there are also similar provisions for seniors' coverage. It wasn't bad enough that the President diverted one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare to begin with, he also granted the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to deny private market-offered coverage for services and treatments that could save your life. Before ObamaCare these private market programs such as the prescription drug program and Medicare Advantage could allow seniors to add their own money to purchase coverage they want and need beyond what the government will pay. ObamaCare allows Washington bureaucrats to deny that choice.

Folks, this isn't how we should be treating our seniors. It isn't how we should be treating people who need access to life-saving treatment and services. This isn't how we should be treating anybody.

That is why today I come to the floor to introduce the Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act of 2014. My legislation repeals these provisions that allow the Federal Government to intercede on very personal decisions. It repeals the provisions that authorize rationing boards to deny patients the ability to access the care that may save their lives.

This legislation is relatively simple and should be supported by all of my colleagues to address some of the egregious changes from the Affordable Care Act that patients should be aware of but that many don't even know exist. This is down the road. We are trying to stay ahead of the curve. That is why I am introducing this legislation.

This legislation builds upon my Restoring Access to Medication Act. This bill repeals the provision of ObamaCare limiting a patient's right to purchase over-the-counter products with their own money. It is also a continuation of my efforts that I discussed when introducing the Four Rationers Repeal Act many times on this floor. It repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It repeals the euphemistically but misleadingly named Innovation Center. It repeals the changes made to the Preventive Services Task Force and makes sure any comparative effectiveness research is used by the doctor and the patient, not coverage providers or CMS, to determine the best care for patients, not simply try to lower costs.

I really believe that in order to protect this all-important doctor- patient relationship we need to repeal and most importantly to replace ObamaCare with the real reforms that work for Kansans and all Americans. However, until we can accomplish full repeal we at least need to ensure we are protecting the life-saving care and treatment that Americans need by attacking the elements of ObamaCare that ration care, and passing the Repeal Rationing and Support of Life Act of 2014. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and take the steps necessary to protect the lives of their constituents.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important role that energy efficiency plays in our transition to a clean energy economy, and the importance of supporting energy efficiency efforts with strong Federal policy. Today, Senators Cardin, Feinstein, and I introduced comprehensive legislation, called the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act of 2014, to reform, improve, and extend crucial tax incentives for energy efficiency. Our legislation focuses on three key sectors: commercial buildings, homes, and industry and manufacturing. My colleagues have spoken ably about the first two already today, and I would like to spend a few moments discussing the third title of this bill.

This bill would create targeted, non-permanent incentives to help the U.S. industrial sector become more globally competitive by employing smart technological improvements to reduce energy use and encourage water reuse.

We have continually seen the eagerness of U.S. industries to innovate and improve the processes by which they produce countless high-quality goods. This set of incentives will help U.S. manufacturers accelerate and expand cutting-edge ideas while also reducing costs.

Industrial and manufacturing facilities have processes specific to each industry and even to each facility. Therefore, industrial efficiency improvements must be focused on these processes, not building retrofits like we see in commercial and residential efficiency measures. My colleagues and I have worked to develop incentives that target energy-intensive processes common to the industrial sector. They include advanced motors, water reuse, combined heat and power and waste heat recovery, thermal biomass, and efficient chillers. I would like to take a few moments to describe the various sections of the industrial efficiency title of the bill.

On average, motors account for over 65 percent of an industrial energy user's electricity use, according to analysis by the International Energy Agency. This bill creates a credit for advanced industrial use motors, including variable speed motors. New advances in power electronics and controls over the past 5 years have advanced the potential for new smart motor technologies to provide a significant energy savings potential if these new motors are placed widely into service.

According to the National Water Reuse Association, the U.S. currently reuses only 7.3 percent of its water, and there is significant potential for gains in this area. The industrial sector, which is responsible for 62.5 percent of domestic freshwater withdrawals, is an ideal place to introduce transformative water reuse and water saving technologies. The bill would create a technology-neutral, performance- based investment tax credit for reuse, recycling, and/or efficiency measures related to industrial water reuse in the manufacturing sector.

A recent Department of Energy study estimates that achieving the President's goal of 40 gigawatts of Combined Heat and Power, also known as CHP, would save energy users $10 billion a year compared to current energy use. In 2008, Congress enacted a 10 percent investment tax credit for combined heat and power systems. The bill would expand that credit's applicability, from the first 15 megawatts to the first 25 megawatts of system capacity. The bill would also remove the existing overall system size cap of 50 megawatts, allowing a greater number of combined heat and power projects to be financially viable and move forward. Finally, the bill would create two new tiers of the credit for CHP systems that achieve especially high efficiency levels. By encouraging adoption of CHP and waste heat recovery technologies, this bill is a common-sense set of incentives that will help manufacturers to become more efficient, reduce energy costs, create highly skilled jobs, and ensure the delivery of reliable power.

New technologies have developed recently that can take advantage of low-grade heat sources. Called Waste Heat to Power, these systems can achieve even greater levels of efficiency from industrial and manufacturing applications.

Currently no incentives exist to promote thermal-only biomass use for commercial and industrial applications. Using biomass for thermal applications has numerous advantages over using biomass to produce electricity. Thermal use is significantly more efficient, less polluting, and more appropriately-scaled to biomass resources.

Finally, large water-cooled chillers are the engines of air- conditioning systems for almost all large buildings. This bill would establish a tax credit that incentivizes the replacement of older chillers that still use environmentally harmful CFC refrigerants with chillers that are both more efficient and use fewer harmful chemicals.

Recent years have seen a resurgence in American industry and manufacturing. As we work to get our economy back on track, become more competitive globally, and fight climate change, we should consider robust efficiency incentives for our industrial sector as a crucial tool in achieving those goals.

I would like to commend my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Feinstein for their hard work on this bill. It represents the latest thinking in terms of straightforward, performance-based technology- neutral, non-permanent efficiency incentives. As we aim to improve efficiency in the industrial, commercial building, and residential sectors, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical bill.