Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my sad duty to report to my colleagues on a young Kentuckian who has been lost while serving his country. SSgt Ryan D. Austin of the U.S. Air Force passed away on August 6, 2013, in Maidstone, in the United Kingdom. He had been stationed at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and he was 25 years old.

For his service in uniform, Staff Sergeant Austin received several medals,

awards, and decorations, including the Air Force Achievement Medal, the Meritorious Unit Award, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Military Education Graduate Ribbon, the Small Arms Expert Marksman Ribbon, the Air Force Training Ribbon, and the Cyberspace Support Badge.

Ryan enlisted in the Air Force in January of 2010. He was deployed to Germany with the 435th Air Ground Operations Wing, First Communications Maintenance Squadron.

Ryan's brother Nathan said:

Being with [the Air Force] was the best career move he ever

made. The Air Force gave him the chance to go overseas, learn

new cultures and serve his country just like our father did.

It made him feel he gave something back to his country, as

well as protect America.

Ryan was raised in Laurel County, the son of Karen Long and Doug Austin, who also served in uniform. He graduated from South Laurel High School in 2006. Friends remember that he enjoyed golf, cooking, working for charities, and traveling.

Nathan remembers:

When Ryan was around, he was fun to be with. We included

each other in our hobbies like tennis, basketball and video

games. We had our friends and we always had great times . . .

it's really a heavy burden on my heart to know that I have

lost a brother.

While in high school, Ryan worked as a teacher's aide for Joey Marcum, a science teacher. Joey remembers:

Ryan was such an awesome young man. He was honest,

hardworking and dependable. You could depend on him for

literally anything. He was just a really good guy.

Ryan leaves behind his wife Jessica. The two of them were married on December 6, 2009. At the time of Ryan's death, Jessica was pregnant with their first child. She had a boy, named Brayden Kaine Austin. Ryan ``was really looking forward to being a father,'' his brother Nathan said.

Christa Koeller is a friend of Ryan and Jessica's who lived across the street from them when Ryan and Christa's husband were both stationed at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha. She remembers the couple's joy at learning they would have a baby:

When he found out and Jessica found out that they both

would be parents, they were so overjoyed to start that new

segment of their lives. Ryan was a family man, devoted to his

job, and he was very dedicated as an airman. . . . A baby son

lost his father, and will never know him.

Ryan's funeral service in Corbin, KY, was officiated by Pastor Daniel Carmack of Hawk Creek Church. Firefighters, policemen, county health care workers, friends, family, and even those who did not know Ryan but wished to pay their respects literally lined the town streets as the funeral procession passed by. Ryan received full military honors from the Honor Guard of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Pastor Carmack said:

Ryan Austin was not only a soldier, but a leader that has

left an indelible mark on this generation.

The Pastor continued:

Ryan will long be remembered as . . . a devoted husband,

loving son, leader to his generation, and always a friend.

Although he was only 25, he have proved the statement true

that ``life is not measured in quantity, but in quality,''

and he lived his life to the full with integrity and honor.

Pastor Carmack, who was Ryan's youth pastor and watched this young man grow up, remembers that ``Ryan was a kid that always served others.'' I think it is clear that as an adult, a husband, a father, and an airman, Ryan's commitment to serving others only grew stronger.

We in the Senate are thinking today of Ryan Austin's loved ones, including his wife Jessica; his son Brayden; his father Doug; his brothers Nathan Austin and Dylon Wall; his sister Rachel Austin; and many other beloved family members and friends. Ryan was laid to rest next to his mother Karen Long.

I would like Ryan's family to know that the Senate honors Sergeant Ryan D. Austin's life of service. We are saddened by this very tragic loss, and we are grateful for his supreme sacrifice, which reminds us all of the meaning of valor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly on a tragedy that happened this morning in Kentucky.

News reports are still developing, but we do know that a large house fire occurred in Greenville, in Muhlenberg County, in western Kentucky. Fire officials reports say multiple lives were lost in the fire, including children. There are two survivors who have been flown to Vanderbilt University Medical Center for treatment.

Personnel from three fire departments--Greenville Fire, Graham Volunteer Fire, and Beechmont Volunteer Fire--responded to the blaze. I thank these brave firefighters, as well as the emergency medical technicians, police officers, and other responders who heroically leapt in to save lives.

Elaine and I are hopeful for a speedy recovery for the two victims who are still alive, and we extend our prayers and condolences to the families of the souls lost in this destructive fire. I will pay close attention to this story as events further develop. The entire Commonwealth stands behind Muhlenberg County right now, and we will do whatever we can to help recover from this horrific loss.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word this morning about the President's State of the Union speech. Let me say that I think Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers did a great job representing our party and the people of Washington State's Fifth District last night.

Frankly, I wish the President had laid out an agenda half as hopeful as the one she did because the State of the Union address is always an important moment for our country. It is an opportunity for the two parties to come together with the President, members of the Supreme Court, and other government officials to show a kind of unity even in the midst of the great debates we have here every single day. It is a worthy tradition.

Last night the President had a real chance to unite the Nation around a forward-looking agenda. He had a huge opportunity to reach to the middle and chart a new path--at a time when nearly 70 percent of Americans say the country is either stagnant or worse off now than when the President took office--that we are on the wrong path. It could have been a legacy-making moment. Instead, it was the same tired boilerplate we hear year after year.

When you peel back all the adjectives and the anecdotes, all the platitudes and nods to the left, what remains for the middle class? Largely, the same tired policies that led us to this point--the same failed agenda with its legacy of stagnant unemployment, lower incomes, growing inequality, and crumbling pathways to the future. The only difference is that now the President wants to keep doing the same old thing, but without as much input from the people's elected representatives in Congress.

It is basically all of the same policies, less of that pesky democratic accountability. The President didn't talk about embracing a positive new agenda last night. He didn't talk about reforming our Tax Code in a way that would drive private-sector growth and job creation. He didn't talk about finding serious ways to start reducing a massive $17 trillion debt that threatens to suffocate our economy and crush the dreams of our children. He didn't talk about saving Social Security and Medicare or about streamlining and slimming the size of government or about setting America's entrepreneurs and small businesses free to dream and to succeed.

As for energy, the President plans seems to boil down to more regulation and new taxes on energy production.

For all of his talk of phones and pens, he didn't even mention using his pen to sign off on the Keystone Pipeline. It is the single, simplest action he could have taken to create jobs soon, and it is actually a project which would create jobs right away. It still can, if the President will just lead. Unions support it; powerful members of his own party support it. The American people overwhelmingly support it. But there is one small group that doesn't support it: Special interests on the far left. The special interests on the far left won last night, and the middle class lost.

There is another big issue where the President turned his back on the middle class, and that of course is ObamaCare. The State of the Union was the President's opportunity to finally admit his mistakes and the painful consequences which have affected so many in Kentucky and around the country. It was a chance to call for a fresh, bipartisan beginning and to start over with true health reform that could really help middle-class families. Instead, he simply doubled down on failed policies.

I know he tried to paint a rosy picture of life under this law in his speech, and I suppose that is natural. But he must know it is not a picture that reflects reality. He must know that Americans suffering under this law aren't going to buy the spin, and he must know that trying to sell Kentucky's ObamaCare bureaucracy as some kind of success story is, to the thousands and thousands of Kentuckians being hurt by it--well, it is, frankly, insulting.

It is insulting to the quarter-million Kentuckians who have had their plans canceled because of this law. It is insulting to the families struggling to afford premiums that have on average increased by almost half across Kentucky. It is insulting to the taxpayers who have been forced to subsidize--to the tune of about $250 million in Kentucky alone--ObamaCare's restricted access to doctors and hospitals. It has a crushing effect on families and skyrocketing costs.

So look. It is clear. President Obama missed the mark last night.

On some issues he actually said the right things, such as on Trade Promotion Authority. That is a place where we can work together to create more American jobs, as long as the President can convince his own party to work constructively with us to do that. What he didn't say last night is that the only thing stopping us from creating more trade jobs is his own party. So we will see if he actually follows through on trade.

But overall, the President mostly refused to budge from his failed policies. He refused to reach across the aisle in a way that would lead to immediate job growth opportunities. That is distressing news for our country. It is especially disheartening for the middle class, and it is disappointing for those of us who actually want to get big things done for our constituents, for those who do want to work with the President, who want to collaborate on smart, bipartisan policies that could finally--finally--get Americans back to work after years of this failed Obama economy. But we cannot do it without President Obama. He has to lead on trade, jobs, energy, the economy--whatever the issue.

We are not going to give up. We are not going to stop trying to help him to see that Americans are calling for a new direction, for a forward leaning agenda that actually puts the middle

class first and leaves tired leftwing ideas where they belong--in the history books. And when the President is ready to work with us, he should know we will be here waiting for him. We have always been here, actually, and many Members of his party, with other helpful ideas, have been here too, waiting for him--Democrats with smart ideas the President has not been willing to consider so far.

All he needs to do is pick up the phone. If he is willing to actually work in a serious way with Members of both parties, we will send him some things to sign with that pen too.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, tonight Members of both parties will welcome the President to the Capitol as he lays out his plans for the year. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. We also look forward to hearing what Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers has to say, too. She is a leader in our party with a compelling story, someone who truly understands what it means to overcome adversity, someone who is dedicated to helping every single American realize her greatest potential. The people of Washington's Fifth District are lucky to have her, and so are we.

As for the President's speech, this is a pivotal moment in the Obama Presidency. We are now entering our sixth year with President Obama at the helm of our economy, the sixth year of his economic policies. At this point we have seen just about everything in the President's tool box. We had a years-long clinic on the failures of liberalism: the government stimulus, the taxes, the regulations, the centralization, and the government control. It just has not worked.

So 74 percent of the American people say it still feels as if the country is in

a recession because to them it still feels like it. As the majority leader likes to say, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, and ladders into the middle class have been kicked away, sawed off, and literally regulated into oblivion.

This is the legacy of the Obama economy, as we stand here at the start of 2014. But it does not have to be the legacy President Obama leaves behind in January of 2017, and that is why tonight's address is so important--because it will give us the clearest indication yet of whether the President is ready to embrace the future or whether he will, once again, take the easy route, the sort of reflexive liberal route, and just pivot back to the failed policies of the past. The choice the President now confronts is a pretty basic one. Does he want to be a hero to the left or a champion for the middle class? He can't be both. He has to choose.

He could double down on the failed policies that brought us to this point. It would make his base pretty happy, I am sure, but we certainly know where that path leads for the middle class. Folks can try to package it any way they like--say it is a new focus on income stagnation that has gotten so much worse under this President's watch. But it is essentially the same path we have been on since he took office. The point is this. Americans do not need a new message; they need a new direction. The problem is not the packaging. It never has been. It is the policies themselves, and President Obama is the only person who can force that turn in direction. He is the only one who can lead it.

He could reach to the center tonight and embrace change over the broken status quo, embrace hope over stale ideology--ideology that has led not just to stagnant incomes but to lower median incomes, to dramatic increases in the number of folks forced to take part-time work when what they really want is full-time work, to greater long-term unemployment, and to more poverty. He could ask Members of both parties to help him make 2014 a year of real action rather than just a talking point.

If he does, he is going to find he has a lot of support from Republicans because we want to work with him to get things done, and we always have. We will be listening closely to see if he is finally prepared to meet us in the political middle so we can finally get some important work done for the middle class. Let's be honest; there is a lot that can be done.

For instance, he could call on Senate Democrats to stop blocking all the job-creation bills the House of Representatives has already passed. He could call for revenue-neutral tax reform that would abolish loopholes, lower tax rates for everyone, and jump-start job creation where it counts--in the private sector. He could push his party to join Republicans supporting bipartisan trade promotion legislation, something the President has said is a priority, and work aggressively to clinch the kind of job-creating trade agreements our allies in places such as Canada and Europe and Australia have already been seeking.

He could work with us to reduce the debt and deficit to ensure the programs Americans count on will be there when they retire, to make government smarter and leaner, and to unshackle the growth potential of small businesses and entrepreneurs to address the massive dissatisfaction out there with the size and the scope of government.

If President Obama wants to score an easy win for the middle class, he could simply put the politics aside and approve the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline is thousands of American jobs very soon. With regard to the Keystone pipeline, he will not even need to use the phone--just the pen. One stroke and the Keystone pipeline is approved.

I know the Keystone issue is difficult for him because it involves a choice between pleasing the left and helping the middle class, but that is exactly the type of decision he needs to make. He needs to make it now. It is emblematic of the larger choices he will need to make about the direction of our country too, because for all of his talk of going around Congress, he would not have to if he actually tried to work with the people's elected representatives every now and then. I am saying don't talk about using the phone, just use the phone and please be serious when you call.

Take the income inequality issue we hear he will address tonight. Is this going to be all rhetoric or is he actually serious, because he is correct to point out that the past few years have been very tough on the middle class. As I indicated, median household income has dropped by thousands since he took office. Republicans want to work with him on this issue but only if he is serious about it. He could show us he is by calling for more choices for underprivileged children trapped in failing schools or he could agree to work with Senator Rand and me to implement Economic Freedom Zones in our poorest communities.

Here is something else: He could work with us to relieve the pain ObamaCare is causing for so many Americans across the country, across all income brackets. I asked him last year to prepare Americans for the consequences of this law. He did not do it. Today those consequences are plain for anyone to see.

Just last night I hosted a tele-townhall meeting where Kentuckians shared their stories about the stress that ObamaCare is causing them and their families: restricted access to doctors and hospitals, lost jobs, lower wages, fewer choices, and higher costs. I assure you these folks will not be applauding when the President is trying to spin this law as a success tonight. More than a quarter million Kentuckians lost the plans that they had and presumably wanted to keep, despite the President's promises to the contrary. This is a law that caused premiums to increase an average of 47 percent in Kentucky and in some cases more than 100 percent. This is a law that in some parts of my State is limiting choices to health care coverage to just two companies in the individual exchange market.

At what cost to the taxpayer for all of this? It is $253 million. That is how much Washington has spent so far for these results in my State--a quarter of a billion dollars to essentially limit care, cancel plans, and increase costs.

Kentucky has gotten more money to set up its exchange than every State except for California, New York, Oregon, and Washington--that is a lot of money--and they still only enrolled 30 percent of the people they were supposed to at this point. How in the world could that be considered a success?

So President Obama and Governor Beshear can keep telling Americans to ``get over it'' if they don't like this law, but sooner or later they are going to have to come to terms with reality. They are going to have to accept that ObamaCare hasn't worked as the administration promised in Kentucky and across America, and it is time to start over with real reform.

That is why tonight I hope the President will make change. I hope he will announce his willingness to work with both parties to start over with real bipartisan reform that can actually lower costs and improve quality of care. That is the kind of reform Kentuckians and Americans want, and that is the way President Obama can show he is serious about having a year of action. This time next year we will be able to judge if he was serious.

If the President is still talking about unemployment benefits next January rather than how to manage new growth, if he is still forced to address the pain of ObamaCare rather than touting the benefits of bipartisan health care reform, if we are trapped in these endless cul de sacs of Keystone and trade and tax reform, then we will know what choice the President made. We will know the special interests won and the middle class lost.

I hope we won't get there. I hope he will reach out tonight. I hope he will be serious. I hope he will help us chart a new path for the American people both parties can support. That may sound like a fantasy to some on the hard left who think tonight is all about them, but the fact is there have always been good ideas the two parties can agree on in Washington--ideas that would make life easier, not harder, for working Americans. Until now the President has mostly chosen to ignore them. Here is hoping for something different tonight.

Mr. President, I wish to say a fond farewell to the Senate's long-term curator Diane Skvarla, who has been such a tremendous asset to the institution over the years and a very good friend to our office as well. All of our dealings with Diane over the years have been marked by her great professionalism and her deep knowledge of and respect for the Senate and its history.

Diane and her staff have been invaluable in the multiyear restoration of the Strom Thurmond room and keeping up the rest of our historic suite. My staff has always enjoyed working with Diane and her staff, and I hope we have been as gracious in return.

For a lot of young people who wring their hands or wander around for a while after college, Diane started working full time in the Senate the Monday after she graduated and has been here off and on ever since.

She witnessed a lot of changes in the curator's office over the years. When Diane started here full time in 1979, there were only three staffers in the office, but in the years leading up to and after the Nation's bicentennial when preservation came back into vogue, there was no shortage of new work.

Diane went on to earn a master's degree in museum studies from George Washington University in 1987, and it paid off when she helped put together a major exhibit for the Senate's own bicentennial in 1989. Diane collaborated on the exhibit with Don Ritchie, and together they set a new high standard for projects of this kind. At the time Diane was the associate curator and Don was the associate historian. They both rose through the ranks of their respective offices, so it has been a fruitful collaboration for many years.

Diane spent most of her early childhood in England where she first learned the sport of dressage. She gave up horses during college at Colgate University in upstate New York and went back to England in 1991 to become certified in teaching the sport. She kept up her riding after she returned to the States and came back to the Senate as head curator in late 1994, replacing the widely admired Jim Ketchum.

With Jim's support and encouragement, Diane learned the ropes and has doggedly pursued the legislative mandate of the Senate curator's office ever since, and that mandate is to protect, preserve, and educate.

Some of the biggest challenges Diane has faced have involved dealing with disasters. In 1983, a bomb planted near the Senate Chamber destroyed portions of the corridor--including a portrait of Daniel Webster. Under Diane's supervision, a conservator put the pieces back together and restored it.

Other projects Diane has been particularly proud of over the years include the publication of the U.S. Senate Catalogue of Fine Art, a 481-page book that took years to complete, and the restoration of a giant portrait of Henry Clay, from my State, that was given to the Senate after being discovered in the basement of a historical society. This magnificent painting of Clay now hangs in the stairway off the Brumidi corridor. The restoration of the Old Senate Chamber was also a proud achievement.

The entire Senate family is grateful to Diane for her many years of devoted service to this institution. Through her work, she has helped preserve and bring to life the shared objects of our collective history as a people--precious objects that belong to all Americans and to our posterity. Her legacy is literally all around us.

We thank her for her work and wish her and her husband Chris all the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, in America, education is one of the keys to success--but too many Kentucky children are trapped in failing schools. This week is National School Choice Week, an ideal time to remember that school choice can be an important option for children living in poverty.

Over 10,000 young Kentuckians a year drop out of school, with little likelihood to return and reduced prospects for the future. Dropping out before graduating high school very often subjects kids to added hardship. Studies by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the average high school dropout earns 42 percent less than a high school graduate without a college degree. And these failures of our school system fall hardest on minority and low-income children.

But the big government-educational complex too often cares more about the bricks and mortar of a failing school than the children attending it. Special interests, like those of unions, can outweigh the interests of individual students.

We need to provide increased opportunities for families to choose the education environment that best meets the needs of their children. School choice programs do just that--they empower parents.

There are two types of school choice programs. One program provides financial assistance for disadvantaged students to enroll in private schools. The second charter schools--are public schools that are entrepreneurial and free from many of the constraints of school district bureaucracies. Rather than focusing on red tape, they are singularly focused on academic achievement, and give parents the opportunity to choose the best school for their child.

Both types of programs offer families the opportunity to send their child to safer schools with a proven track record of success. They allow public education dollars to follow the student to the school of their parents' choosing and improve student performance. Surely parents, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of what school is right for their child.

In Washington, DC, studies have shown that the city's private school scholarship program has increased graduation rates by 21 percent. In Indiana, enrollment in the State's private school scholarship program has more than doubled this year, to nearly 20,000 students. Clearly parents in Indiana are pleased with the availability of this option.

Indiana charter school students also saw improvements in learning for math and reading compared to their traditional public school counterparts. If Indiana and Washington, DC, can offer their children better choices, why can't Kentucky do the same?

A recent poll shows that 72 percent of Kentuckians favor charter schools, and yet Kentucky is one of only seven States that does not allow them. I agree with the vast majority of Kentuckians who favor charter schools and have supported Federal incentives for States that permit them, and will continue to do so.

For these reasons, I am a proud sponsor of legislation in the Senate that would expand school choice and allow 11 million low-income students to take Federal funding to the public or private school they choose. This would give parents, not Washington or bloated school bureaucracies, the power to decide how to best use the education money allocated for their children. It would also ensure that students trapped in failing schools don't have to wait for those schools to get better to get a quality education.

While I was encouraged to see Kentucky's ranking among States has improved, more is still needed. Last year, 18 of Kentucky's 22 failing schools were in Jefferson County. Students trapped in failing schools, such as those in the Louisville area, need options before they fall too far behind.

School choice is a way out. For low-income families, it can break the cycle of poverty. Thanks to school choice, many young men and women who would otherwise not have had the opportunity to excel can grow up to become leaders in their communities and their country.

The current one-size-fits-all education system is not the best approach. Our Commonwealth needs to make fundamental changes so that that every child has the opportunity to leave a failing school. I'm grateful for the organizations across the Bluegrass State which are fighting to make that happen. Kentucky's school children are capable of great things; let's make sure we empower their parents to help their children succeed.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in celebration of the anniversary of Dr. Louis Arnold's birth. Dr. Arnold, or ``the Flying Evangelist'' as he is known by many in our home State, was born 100 years ago on January 19, 1914, in Buckeye, KY, and has spent his life in service to the Baptist church. He is the founding pastor of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church.

Dr. Arnold felt the call to preach early in life. At age 11, he began preaching to his classmates while they walked to and from school. Then, at 19, he publicly announced his call to preach and held his first sermon in the Mitchellsburg Baptist Church. Following that first sermon--the story goes--he gazed up into the stars with a Bible in hand and said, ``Lord, I'd rather be a preacher than to be President of the United States.''

Dr. Arnold got the nickname ``the Flying Evangelist'' during the second World War. Already the pastor of a church in Lexington, KY, he was called to pastor another church in Cincinnati, OH. The churches were separated by 85 miles of country road--too far of a drive to be able to preach at both Sunday services. Undeterred, Dr. Arnold bought an interest in a small plane and learned to fly. Now, not only could he easily commute between the two churches, but he could also fly to revivals and churches across the region. He even equipped his plane with a loudspeaker so he could preach from the sky over cities and towns.

Although Dr. Arnold was born in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, his message has spread far and wide. He has his own radio broadcast, ``Preaching at Your Church,'' and his paper, ``The Arnold Report,'' is mailed to all 50 States. He's organized churches and revivals in his home State of Kentucky as well as travelled abroad to places such as Mexico, Central America, Europe, and the Bahamas. He's written numerous books of sermon and Bible study, and dozens of inspirational novels which have sold in all 50 States and several foreign countries.

Dr. Arnold celebrated his 100th birthday by preaching at the Clays Mill Road Baptist Church; a remarkable testament to his conviction and faith that have not wavered in the more than 80 years since his first sermon. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Louis Arnold, an upstanding Kentucky citizen, on the occasion of his 100 years of life and his unwavering devotion to his faith.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, this is a good step in the direction of getting the Senate back to a process under which amendments are allowed and voted on by both sides. I particularly thank Senator Isakson for his hard work on this.

Obviously, I do not object.

Mr. President, yesterday, I said there were a number of things the President could announce in his North Carolina speech that would draw bipartisan support and actually boost the economy. One of the things I was particularly disappointed he didn't push--at least push harder--is trade.

As I said, this is one of the brightest areas of his economic agenda, but if we as a nation don't act quickly and decisively, the world is going to literally pass us right by. We are going to miss opportunities to benefit economically, to open foreign markets to American goods and to America's political and cultural influence.

When we look at the rest of the developed world, from Europe to Canada to Australia, they are practically falling all over themselves to negotiate more and better opportunities, while we basically have sat on our hands, a consequence of the President's inability to persuade his own party--his own party--to expand trade-related jobs.

So we need to catch up, but we can't do that without leadership from the President, the kind of leadership as we have seen in the Senate from the chairman of the Finance Committee, who himself obviously is a Democrat. He has been a tireless advocate for trade and for American agriculture. Yet with his retirement looming on the horizon, I am afraid there might not be many Democrats left in the Senate willing to help lead on this issue. That is why we need the President to be deeply involved. We need him to step up for American workers and increase exports by bringing his own party on board with a trade promotion bill that was introduced just last week.

The authority in that legislation is key to enabling the administration to conclude critical trade negotiations that hold incredible promise for American jobs and economic growth. With our economy in such dire straits these days, opening new opportunities for American goods through trade should be a real no-brainer. It is an issue that used to be fairly bipartisan around here, and it can be again, if the President is willing to lead. Millions of middle-class families and small businesses are counting on him to do just that.

So I look forward to him promoting the benefits of trade and the legislation I mentioned in his State of the Union Address. I hope we will hear about that. When he does so, Republicans will be right there with him to move the trade promotion bill through Congress in a bipartisan fashion.

EPA Coal Regs

Last week the Obama administration published a regulation that would effectively ban coal-fired powerplants from being built in the future.

The head of the EPA, who will be testifying on this regulation today, basically admitted as much herself when she called it ``significant economic lift.'' She knows the technology this regulation requires is prohibitively expensive; that her own agency knows it is nowhere near-- nowhere near--ready for adoption; that even some White House officials do not believe her plan is feasible, and that is the point. The point is to eliminate coal jobs in America.

That is why I wasn't surprised by emails that recently came to light--emails which appeared to show EPA officials colluding with extremist special interests in devising impossible-to-achieve regulations. The emails even referred to previously shuttered powerplants as ``defeated,'' making the intent behind coal-related actions abundantly clear.

Here is the other thing. This new regulation is not even expected to reduce emissions in a meaningful way--not even expected to reduce emissions in a meaningful way. What it will do, however, is trigger a section of the law that would allow the administration to eventually shut down coal-fired plants that exist today.

In other words, it would allow the administration to achieve its true aim of eliminating coal jobs completely. For struggling middle-class families across eastern Kentucky, this is just the latest punch in the gut from Washington, from an administration whose own advisers seem to believe that ``a war on coal is exactly what is needed,'' from one of the President's advisers.

Some call this regulation outrageous. Some say it is extremism at its worst. Here is what I call it. It is absolutely cruel because here is what is lost in this administration's crusade for ideological purity, in its crusade for approval of coastal editorials--human lives are affected, the lives of people I represent, folks who haven't done anything to deserve a war being declared on them.

These are the Kentuckians who just want to work, provide for their families, and deliver the type of low-cost energy that attracts more jobs to Kentucky. And coal is what allows so many of them to do all that. It provides well-paying jobs. And, as Jimmy Rose of Bell County, KY, who has now become a rather famous country singer, puts it in his hit song, ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.''

I remind my colleagues that coal does more than keep the lights on in Kentucky; it keeps the lights on here too, both figuratively and literally. From the anti-coal blogger tapping out a tweet to the EPA staffer cooking up a meal, millions of Americans rely on coal to power their homes and their offices. In recent years, coal has accounted for about 40 percent of the

electricity generated in our country. That compares to just 3.5 percent for sources such as wind and solar. So even if the administration were to achieve its dream of eliminating every last coal job, it is not as though they could just fire up a few windmills to cover the gap. It is going to take a very long time--decades--for alternative sources to even come close to providing the same level of jobs and energy as coal. In other words, the administration's ideological crusade doesn't even seem to have a logical end game. It is basically just ideology.

Here is the thing. Republicans agree that alternative and renewable energy sources are necessary for fuel diversity, but we believe wind and geothermal and solar should be part of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy which also includes coal and natural gas and the oil we can get right here in North America, with Americans providing the workforce.

Another key difference is this: Republicans look at Kentucky coal miners and see hard-working men and women, not obstacles to some leftwing fantasy. That is why I, along with 40 Republican cosponsors-- including my friend and fellow Kentuckian Rand Paul--intend to file a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to ensure a vote to stop this devastating rule. We believe the EPA regulation in question clearly meets the definition for congressional review under this statute, and I am sending a letter to Comptroller General Dodaro outlining the reasons why that is the case.

If the majority leader were serious about helping Kentuckians, he would stop blocking the Senate from passing my Saving Coal Jobs Act. It is commonsense legislation that would give elected representatives of the people a greater say in how coal is regulated in this country. There is no reason for him to keep it bottled up a moment longer.

Look. Kentucky is facing a real crisis. The Obama administration appears to be sending signals that its latest regulation is actually just the beginning in a new, expanded front in its war on coal. Already the administration's regulations have played a significant role in causing coal jobs in my State to plummet. These are good jobs which pay more than $1 billion in annual wages to my constituents. For every miner with a job, three more Kentuckians will hold a coal-dependent job as well.

The majority leader and his Democratic caucus now have a choice: Are they going to stand with the coal families under attack in places such as Kentucky and West Virginia and Colorado or are they going to continue to stand with the powerful leftwing special interests who want to see their jobs completely eliminated? That is the choice. It is pretty clear where I stand and where most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle stand.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I would like to say a fond farewell to Patrick Kilcur, a Republican floor assistant who has decided to move on after 7 very eventful years here in the Senate. Patrick has been a real asset to the conference but also just a great guy to have around. And that is something that has been true for everybody from the pages to the Senators. Anytime morale stated to flag in the late hours around here, Patrick was usually the one who gave everybody a lift. He has got a great spirit and a great sense of humor, qualities that we are always in great need of on the floor, especially late at night or during the various crises we have had to deal with over the past several years. And he has just been a very thoughtful member of the team. On a trip to China a few years back, Patrick returned not just with some new custom shirts but with a panda hat for all the Senate pages. He has always been quick to offer guidance to the pages and to thank them. And he always made time when the end of their terms arrived to take them out to lunch and send them off the right way. Patrick is a proud native of West Chester, PA. He first came here as a floor monitor for Senator Specter in 2006 and moved to the cloakroom 2 years later. He became floor assistant in 2012. We will miss his ready smile and his knowledge of the floor. I know the pages will miss him too. On a happy note, we are glad that Patrick found his future wife Julie here in the Senate. Patrick and Julie just got engaged last month, and we wish them all the very best in their future life together. So to Patrick, I say thank you on behalf of the entire Senate. Best wishes in all your future endeavors.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

The majority leader is correct. There is substantial bipartisan support for the flood insurance bill. We are not in a position to clear it yet, but Senator Isakson, who has taken the lead on this issue on our side, is working with our Members. Hopefully, we will be able to figure out a way forward here in the not too distant future.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me say in response to the colloquy we just heard that it used to be the assistant majority leader's view that, as he put it, if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a firefighter, and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the Senate. Obviously, those days have changed.

What really happened over the last week is the refusal to have an open amendment process, the refusal to treat both sides the same. The final proposal we objected to yesterday requiring all the amendments to get 60 votes but final passage only 51 still does not restore the Senate to the way it has formerly functioned. Any Member of the Senate ought to be able to have a fair chance to get his or her amendment adopted. That is the way it used to be around here before the majority leader decided to dictate everything everyone does.

So what we are seeking is fundamental fairness and, on this particular bill, an open amendment process and an opportunity to pay for it. I think the real concern was that the majority leader was afraid that some of the Republican amendments might actually pass, might actually enjoy bipartisan support.

So we will get back to that bill. It is a very important bill. But if anybody had any doubts that Washington Democrats wanted to see the unemployment insurance bill fail, well, I think we had those doubts erased yesterday and by the comments just made. It is just the latest example of Senate Democrats putting politics over policy. And in this case it is doubly tragic because this time they are putting politics over struggling families who deserve some certainty from Congress.

Look. It is no secret that our Democratic friends plan to spend the year exploiting folks who are still struggling in this economy for political gain. They have been telling reporters that for weeks. That is no secret, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing. It is still wrong.

I would probably want to be talking about something other than ObamaCare too, if I had voted for it. They want to talk about anything other than ObamaCare. But to create a conflict where the possibility of agreement was so close while more than 1 million people are stuck in the middle is just simply outrageous--making pawns out of these people stuck in the middle of this political game.

Here is the larger issue. Here we are in the sixth year of this administration, and we are still talking about emergency unemployment benefits--6 years into the Obama administration. After all the stimulus bills and all the other big-government solutions we were told would help the little guy, we are still looking at record long-term unemployment. We are still looking at hundreds of thousands of able- bodied men and women basically giving up on finding work in this economy in the last month alone, in just 1 month. One report I saw even suggested that about half of our Nation's counties have yet to return to their prerecession economic output--half the counties in America.

The bottom line: The Obama economy isn't working for middle-class Americans.

Democrats tell us again and again that their policies will help people who are struggling. Yet we always seem to end up in the very same situation--debating whether to provide more emergency help instead of talking about how to provide a long-term solution and a stable economy that doesn't require permanent life support from Washington.

What is needed is a fundamental course correction. What is needed is for our colleagues to finally acknowledge what has failed and then actually work with us on the underlying problem. That is what Republicans are saying in this debate. What we are saying is, how about actually trying to create jobs for a change?

That will be the President's challenge today when he speaks in North Carolina. We hear he might lay out some ideas to get the private sector moving again. If that is the case, then maybe he will be taking a step in the right direction--a step away from big-government policies that have failed so many Americans for so many years--because if he is truly serious about getting the economy back on track and creating jobs, he will do more than just talk about job creation or bipartisanship today; he will actually work with us on real bipartisan solutions to get there, and there are some simple ways he can show he means it.

The Republican-controlled House has sent over a number of bills that would give a boost to jobs and to our economy. A good start would be for the President to lean on Democrats who run the Senate to take up those for immediate consideration.

He could acknowledge the real pain ObamaCare is inflicting on middle- class families and then work with us to start over with real bipartisan reforms that actually lower costs and won't hurt the economy the way ObamaCare does.

He could call for true bipartisan tax reforms.

He could announce construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania on the floor, who will remember that the President came to a lunch with Senate Republicans last year, and the President said he would make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline last year, sometime during 2013. Apparently, that was in the same category: If you have your policy and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor and you like them, you can keep them. I will make a decision on Keystone Pipeline by the end of 2013. Well, we are still waiting.

He could actually deliver on one of the brightest spots of his economic agenda: trade. That means that instead of allowing the United States to lag behind our trading partners, the President could find a way to bring his party on board with a bipartisan bill introduced last week that would get the administration back in the game of helping American workers with increased exports.

These are just a few of the many areas where we could work together to get some good things done for the American people.

I hope he will be serious in his speech today. I hope he will focus on actually getting the job done instead of just providing another distraction from the pain of ObamaCare and the Obama economy because if this devolves into just another political exercise that is focused more on making a point than making a real difference in the lives of

people who are struggling, that is not going to help middle-class families get back on their feet. That won't help college graduates find full-time work. All it will do is continue a cycle of economic pain that the President needs to work with Republicans to stop.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, on the unemployment insurance bill, there have been productive conversations between the majority leader and several Members on this side. The Republicans have offered numerous commonsense proposals to get to a conclusion. Ideally, we would have spent the past week voting on those proposals, so there is really no good reason for us to be in the position that we are in right now.

Let me just underscore some of the things on my side that we would like to see in the final product. First, the Senate should actually be paying for whatever it passes, and not with spending cuts 11 years from now that we know aren't going to happen. It is also reasonable to expect practical progrowth job creation measures so we can actually get people back to work, and for a solution to be reasonable it should also respect the right of our constituents to be heard on this issue through a more open amendment process.

We have to get away from an attitude that essentially says the views of half the American people don't matter in the Senate. These days it has gotten even worse than that; ideas on both sides are often completely ignored. That is just not how the Senate is supposed to work. So we have an opportunity to begin to start fixing the problem on the bill that is before us. It is the right thing to do. I am hopeful common sense will prevail.

(The further remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1916 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have now been on this bill a week--a week. No amendments have been allowed. It is pretty clear the majority leader is not interested in having an open amendment process. And, of course, the consent request that has just been offered requires that all of the Republican amendments be at a 60-vote threshold and that final passage be at 51--in other words, guaranteed to fix the result in such a way that doesn't give the minority a fair chance.

I mean, who is to say, a number of our amendments might be appealing to Members on the Democratic side. That is probably why the majority leader wants it to be at 60, because he is afraid they may pass.

So this has obviously been fixed to guarantee that you get no outcome. Of course, our Members who voted to get on the bill, who are anxious to try to improve the bill and find a way to get us to final passage, have also found this agreement to be unacceptable. So I am not speaking just for myself but for the Members on my side who have spent a lot of time over the last week trying to figure a way to get this bill across the floor in a bipartisan fashion which would actually achieve the result and try to get us to some reforms as well.

So I ask unanimous consent that once the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1845, the unemployment extension bill, the first amendment in order be a Heller-Collins amendment related to the bill. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of that amendment, it be in order for the majority leader, or his designee, to offer an amendment, and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion.

I object.

I believe I objected to the majority leader's request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Heller amendment No. 2651.

I ask unanimous consent to call up the Coburn amendment No. 2606.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with further amendments is pending?

Further parliamentary inquiry: If a motion to table the Reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful, would there still be Reed amendments pending that would prevent anyone from offering an amendment?

Mr. President, I have an important amendment that I would like the Senate to debate and vote on. The Reid motion to commit is currently blocking the consideration of those amendments.

In order for the Senate to start considering amendments, including the Coburn amendment No. 2606, I move to table the pending Reid motion to commit with instructions and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have spoken often on the floor about the challenges and opportunities for the future that the people of eastern Kentucky and rural parts of the Commonwealth face. Many of these challenges stem from this administration's regulatory overreach, whether it is a war on coal, ObamaCare or Dodd-Frank. Too many people are out of work, which has placed a drastic burden on the coal mining industry, and harshly cut the number of jobs available in the coal mining industry and related industries.

In spite of the challenges the people of eastern Kentucky face, I have great confidence we can overcome that and succeed. I was pleased to be able to assist the Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation in receiving a Promise Zone designation, which was awarded just last week. That is why I wrote the administration in support of this designation last year. This economic initiative is just one way to help jump-start the region's journey out of economic distress.

But we need more than that. My friend and colleague in the other Chamber, Representative Hal Rogers, is leading an effort to identify ways to lift Appalachia out of the cycle of poverty and unemployment through the SOAR Initiative, and I applaud his efforts.

To offer yet another possibility for eastern Kentucky, my friend and colleague Senator Rand Paul and I introduced the Economic Freedom Zones Act, to further enable eastern Kentucky to lift the burdens of some of the poorest families in the country. Our legislation would roll back government regulations and tax barriers to spur job creation and reform failed educational systems to aid disadvantaged children.

So continuing my efforts to find ways to assist these rural counties and give these communities a voice, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senator Paul, the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act or simply the HELP Rural

Communities Act. My friend and colleague in the House, Representative Andy Barr, introduced this legislation in that body, and I applaud his efforts to see it passed.

The HELP Rural Communities Act would give rural counties in Kentucky a voice when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has incorrectly labeled them as ``nonrural''--just another example of this administration's one-size-fits-all, we-know-best approach to governing. Several counties in Kentucky, such as Bath County, have been labeled as ``nonrural'' and are therefore barred from certain rural lending practices helpful to farmers and small businesses.

If you have ever been to these counties, as I have, you would most certainly disagree with the CFPB's ruling. But current law provides literally no opportunity to challenge the CFPB's decision. My bill would allow counties which have been improperly designated as ``nonrural'' to petition the CFPB with additional local information to reconsider their status in order to ensure that rural communities, such as those in eastern Kentucky, have the access to credit they need to grow their economy.

This is an important step in the effort to renew hope for the future in rural Kentucky, especially eastern Kentucky. Given the bipartisan interest shown in recent weeks to get government out of the way and let the people of the region work, Congress and the President can come together to pass this legislation on behalf of eastern Kentuckians and rural communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Paul and Representative Barr, to see that we get this passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.