Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not able to modify the request that has been made, as I understand it, by the Senator from Illinois, because he goes beyond what he listed as being needed to just address natural disasters and threats to homeland security. He listed a number of agencies that play into that role. My understanding--and he can clarify this if I am wrong--is that he wanted to expand my request that he consent to adding the limited portion of what he mentioned relating to the role of FEMA and our national security issues and homeland security issues that we are faced with, but he added to that the request for funding of the entire functions of government, and that I cannot consent to. Therefore, I object.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. Can we not at least fund those agencies that are looking to protect us from terrorist acts, that are in place to keep the American people safe? How can we reject that? Finally, let me mention a fourth--and there are others, but let me mention this one. Fund Food and Drug Safety Programs, safety programs for those who are in need of approvals for new drugs and new devices and who are experiencing significant delays because the Federal employees at FDA who review these functions cannot report to work. Madam President, frankly, I am perplexed why the majority leader continues to oppose even consideration and debate for individual funding bills when they just agreed a couple of days ago to funding for our troops, and I applaud that and support that. But if we did that because of the essential nature of their function, shouldn't we also include these other items? Shouldn't we agree we need to fulfill our commitments to guard and reserve and our intelligence community at this critical time? The House has already sent over nine proposals to the Senate for consideration--nine--and nine times the Senate has had the opportunity to pass legislation to reopen our government and fund essential programs, but the Senate majority leader chose not to do so and the President refuses to even engage. A government shutdown is a pox on all our houses. We need to do what the people of this great country elected us to do, and that is to work to find a solution to this government shutdown. How can we do that if the Democratic chair at the negotiating table is empty? What we are looking at here is a Clint Eastwood moment. We are looking at an empty chair. Mr. President, where are you? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. As did my colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, I also wish to take a moment before I deliver my remarks here to thank the Capitol Police, all of law enforcement, and first responders who have put themselves on the line to protect others. I know I speak for every Republican, every Democrat, and all of our staffs that we deeply appreciate their work and their sacrifice. These brave men and women are here every day whether they are paid or not. We appreciate that. If there is one thing we are united on, and I wish there were more, it is our respect for those who serve to protect, those serving us here at home as well as those serving us in harm's way abroad. We owe them our support and we owe them our thanks. I am hearing from a number of Hoosiers, as my colleague from Indiana has, that they are tired of political gamesmanship, they are tired of paying taxes to a government that isn't listening or delivering for them, and now we are in a situation where they are tired of our careening toward these cliffs and shutdown. But when the Republican- controlled House sent over legislation to the Senate, calling for House and Senate leaders to conference together, to sit down in a room, talk through this problem and come to a solution, this good-faith effort was rejected out of hand by the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada. We wanted to sit down and debate this issue. Once again, yet another good-faith effort sent over by Republicans to help fund the essential functions of this government was dead on arrival in the Senate. The Senate majority leader, parroting the words of the President, said: We will not negotiate. This was refusing to allow Republicans and Democrats to try to find a way forward to resolve this issue and get our government functioning. In the past when these things happened, Presidents, realizing that they were elected to lead--we are elected to serve here, we are elected to serve the President, we are elected to serve the people we represent, but the President is elected to serve this country. When the President in the past has come up in a stalemate situation, there has been a reach out to the other side whenever we have a divided government. After 2008, when the Democrats won control of the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, they had total control. They pushed through a number of measures without any single Republican or opposition support. Those programs now we are dealing with, and ObamaCare is the primary one that has brought us to this particular point. The lesson learned here is when one party has total control without support from the opposition party, we end up with legislation that is dysfunctional, that doesn't work, that reflects the ideology of one party and doesn't have any balance to it. We are now in a position where we have a divided government. What we would like is to have some say on how this goes forward, to point out those things of this bill that are not working, to point out the disaster this is turning out to be, the dysfunction of this particular legislation. The point I am trying to make here is whatever the issue, whenever we come to a stalemate, historically throughout the history of this country it is the Commander in Chief, the President, who has stepped forward and taken the initiative and said: We need to work together to solve this. We can't impose our will on the body that the American people has divided, giving control of one House to one party and control of another House to another party. Ronald Reagan reached out to Tip O'Neill, and some very significant measures, stalemates, were resolved because the President reached out and was willing to negotiate. The Democratic President, Bill Clinton, reached out to a then- Republican Speaker of the House in the 1990s, and we addressed a major issue with welfare reform, much-needed welfare reform. It couldn't have happened without the President reaching out. I could give other examples, but we are in another stalemate situation. Yet what do we hear? No matter what Republicans send over, no matter what the offer is, if the offer is to let us sit down and conference this, the reaction from the Senate majority leader is: We refuse to negotiate. The reaction from the White House and this President over and over and over again is: I will not negotiate. Even though the American public sent you control of one House of Congress, even though the Constitution establishes the role of the Congress vis-a-vis the President, and calls for an agreement between the two before we can move forward, this President, for whatever motive, says: I will not negotiate. We can do something right now to help Americans. We can come together to help fund important programs and departments that should not have been jeopardized because of this impasse. We can at least do that. If we can't get the President to negotiate, can we not at least take some steps forward for those essential functions of government? Republicans have sent over nine such propositions and proposals. Each one of them has been rejected, dead on arrival, not even allowed to debate, and procedurally stopped by the majority leader. Let me suggest four that are waiting in the wings and surely, for reasons of health and safety of Americans, surely we can agree to support these four and perhaps more. Some others have been suggested. Surely we have to conclude that this is an essential function. How it was that they were declared nonessential is beyond me. Let me mention the four: Honoring our veterans and the commitments that we have made to them, providing for our national security, and protecting Americans' health. I spoke earlier this week on the Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act, a bill providing funding for disability payments, the GI bill education training, and VA home loans under the same conditions that were in place last year. The House passed this, but the Senate majority leader has blocked it here. The House also passed the Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act. This bill provides funding for the pay and allowances of military personnel in the Reserve component and National Guard component who are scheduled to report for duty as early as this weekend. Denying support for those who wear the uniform and stand ready and are engaged when called on, and have been trained to do so, is a great disservice to the men and women who have dedicated so much and put themselves at great risk to wear the uniform of the United States. Secondly, funding the Department of Homeland Security. There are a number of ways our homeland security is impacted under the shutdown. One of the impacts on FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--is the need to be funded so they are prepared to respond to natural disasters. We are only a breaking-news headline away from another natural disaster or from some other need for FEMA to engage. Yet their employees are furloughed and not in place to be ready to respond. We have a tropical storm in the gulf right now that may turn into something dangerous. Our emergency response efforts to provide for our homeland support is inadequately funded. Can we at least do that? How about funding for our intelligence community? The House will send us Preserving Our Intelligence Capabilities Act, which will provide immediate funding for personnel compensation and contracts for those individuals who have been determined by the Director of National Intelligence as necessary to support critical intelligence activities and counterterrorism efforts. Under the current shutdown, 70 percent of our civilian employees in our intelligence community have been sent home on furlough. Director of National Intelligence Clapper said this lapse in funding our intelligence agency is a ``dreamland'' for our foreign intelligence adversaries. Can we not at least, if we have a delay in resolving our issues here--and we have that delay, as I said, because the Senate majority leader has not allowed us to sit down and work-- Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today is day 2 of the ongoing government shutdown, and negotiations to find a resolution to our differences remain at a stalemate. Actually, I don't think we can use the word ``negotiations'' because you really can't negotiate if there is only one side at the table. It takes two parties, and there is only one party there. Yesterday Majority Leader Reid made it crystal clear when he blocked the House Republican proposal to sit down and talk. For months we have heard that Republicans need to sit down and talk--from the Senate. The House sent over a bill to do just that, and the majority leader blocked that. To say that the people in my State are frustrated with this type of action is an understatement. Hoosiers and Americans are tired of the ongoing dysfunction in Washington and the inability of Congress and this administration to do our job. We can't do our jobs if we are not talking to each other and if the White House continues to be absent. I recently learned that the President has called congressional leaders from both parties to come to the White House. I initially thought that was a positive step, but then I heard the news that the White House has already released a statement saying the President is doing this to reiterate he will not negotiate. So my question is: What is the point? Maybe it is a chance for a photo opportunity, but certainly no progress will be made on the stalemate we are addressing today, tomorrow, and perhaps for weeks ahead. It is ironic that the President is willing to talk and negotiate with the President of Iran or the President of Russia but is unwilling to negotiate with Republicans or Democrats in the Congress. Sadly, this has been the model over at the White House--continued campaigning, ignoring governing, and assembling pseudo-campaign-like settings to blast Republicans. This is not a helpful strategy to achieve a resolution to this shutdown. We have seen a series of attempts by House Republicans to send over legislation that would at least fund some of the more dysfunctional effects of a shutdown. Fortunately, we agreed we will fund our troops. They are in harm's way. They have families at home who are trying to pay the mortgage, keep things together, buy food for the kids, save money for their education. They do all of those things while their spouses are overseas defending our country. It would be unconscionable to stop their paychecks, and that is the positive step we have taken. House Republicans have also offered a number of other initiatives-- all of which has been deep-sixed by the majority leader. They are not even allowing debate--we can do that in this morning business time-- under the bill. We simply have a motion to table which does not even allow us an up-or-down vote. I wish to mention two things that the House is going to send over-- and it may already be here--which is five more proposals and they also involve our uniformed soldiers. I am a U.S. Army veteran, but I think every American--whether you are a Democrat or Republican, veteran or not--would agree we have a duty to remember, honor, and support those who have sacrificed so much to protect and defend our country. When they complete their service and come home, those veterans deserve to receive the care and support they need. The House has sent over an act called Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act. It is a bill that would provide funding for disability payments, the GI bill, education, training, and VA home loans under the same conditions as in effect at the end of the just completed fiscal year. This legislation needs to be brought before us. It needs to be debated, and it needs to be passed--hopefully unanimously. I am asking the majority leader not to deep-six this legislation. This is too important for our veterans, it is needed, and it should be funded. Any attempt to deny this, I believe, would be a great disservice to the men and women who dedicated so much and put themselves at so great a risk to serve in our military. Another one of those proposals--and there are five, but I will just talk about two--is the Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act. The bill provides funding for the pay and allowances of military personnel in the Reserve component who are scheduled to report for duty--many as early as this weekend. In Indiana, we have over 20,000 reservists and guardsmen. It is the fourth largest Army National Guard in the country and the sixth largest National Guard Force out of all of the 54 States, provinces, and territories when it is combined with the Air National Guard. Indiana is home to two Air National Guard wings: the 122nd Fighter Wing in Fort Wayne and the 181st Intelligence Wing in Terre Haute, as well as the 434th Air Refueling Wing at Grissom Air Reserve Base. The Senate unanimously approved to pay our troops and remove them from the crossfire of the government shutdown debate. Let's do the same for our reservists and guardsmen who are doing their traditional duty of one weekend a month for, as Winston Churchill said, ``They are twice the citizen.'' Some things simply need to rise above politics. Let's join together, address this issue, and make sure the men and women who have served our country do not pay the price for Washington's failure to govern. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of confusion over what has been happening in the Senate this week. I know Hoosiers want a clear explanation, so I wish to take a moment to explain exactly where I stand on the issue before us. Let me start by laying out a few facts. This is the reality we face. No. 1: Every single Republican opposes ObamaCare and wants to see it repealed and defunded. That is unassailable. We are all together on that. No. 2: The House has sent us a bill that would defund ObamaCare while keeping the rest of the government running. I support that bill, and I think all Republicans support that bill. No. 3: Senate Democrats are united in their opposition to repealing ObamaCare and, unfortunately, the fact is they control the Senate and they control the White House, and we don't have the votes to prevail. So the confusion sets in because, let's face it, we have a lot of confusing procedures here in the U.S. Senate, but I have always been guided by the principle that to the extent possible, a yes should be yes and a no should be no. We have all of these procedural motions and Members like to attach caveats, such as: This is what it means if you vote to go forward or this is what it means if you don't vote to go forward. It is so easy to run home and say: Oh, well, that was an issue politically. That was procedural, so don't pay any attention to that. Sometimes we have no other option because the majority leader won't allow any votes on the issue itself. In this case, the majority leader has allowed that vote. That is not the case here. We don't need a procedural vote to determine whether one is for or against ObamaCare. We will be able to have a vote if we invoke cloture and move forward and keep this alive to continue debate not just this week but next year and however long it takes to deal with this issue. We need to move forward or everything else comes to a standstill. That is why I will be voting to move forward. I will be voting to keep the process alive. Otherwise, everything stops. The House of Representatives, controlled by our party, is waiting for us to send this bill back. If we deny cloture, it doesn't go back to the House. They don't have an opportunity to go to the next step. There is bipartisan support for a bill I have introduced in the Senate, and Todd Young, a Congressman from southern Indiana, has not only introduced but passed in the House of Representatives a measure to delay this process for a year so we can continue to address and hopefully repeal ObamaCare. The President has delayed implementation for business, and again today for small business. He can delay it for individuals, and that will give us time to continue this effort. Voting for cloture today so we can send something back to the House is not a vote for ObamaCare. It is exactly the opposite. It is a vote against ObamaCare. It keeps the process alive. Saying otherwise is misleading. Also, if that were the case, then the procedural vote we had on Wednesday would not have been 100 to zero. So those who try to define this as a procedural vote are essentially stopping the process from going forward and stopping the government from running. It affects military families, it affects veterans, and it affects thousands and thousands of people in critical jobs. It affects people all across my State. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't achieve the goal. We all know a major portion of ObamaCare is funded through mandatory spending, and that is not what we are addressing here. It can only affect the appropriations, the discretionary funding, which is less than 50 percent. If it achieves the goal, then it may be worth considering. But since it doesn't achieve the goal, let's keep this process alive and let's all be on the record with a yes or a no. Let's get this bill back to the House so we can continue the fight and let's be straight up on where we stand on this issue, not through a procedural vote but through a clear yes or no. The American people deserve no less. I commend the passion of my colleagues talking on the floor, trying to get rid of ObamaCare. We have a difference of opinion as to how tactically we can achieve this objective. I have come to the judgment and the conclusion that I think many are coming to, which is that instead of just stopping everything--which means being at a total impasse and shutting down the government--and even if we were successful, it wouldn't address the full shutdown and defunding of ObamaCare, the best course of action is to move forward. Our House Republican Members are waiting for us to send them legislation so we can keep this process going and come to, hopefully, a much better resolution than just simply using a procedural gimmick to define where we stand on this issue. I take a back seat to no one on where I stand on ObamaCare, and I will not give up the fight until we achieve the goal of replacing the law with real health care solutions. Mr. President, I yield any time I may have remaining.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I want to yield back to my colleague here. I regret that we are not able to take this up. I regret that we are not able to have a debate or a vote on this matter. We are going to do all we can to continue to address, to work for, and to fight for the repeal and the defunding, however we accomplish it, of the piece of legislation that was jammed through the process without any bipartisan support, that is now unfolding before our very eyes. We see what a colossal mess it is making. We are not giving up on this process. In fact, we are going forward. This first vote on cloture, that is not the end of this. This is the beginning. As this unfolds for the American people, I think we are going to gain the support on a bipartisan basis to get rid of this, to start over with more responsible, cost-effective, meaningful, worthwhile provisions that address our health care needs and not take this one-piece-fits-all bill and jam it down the throats of the American people. I yield back.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for listing those companies. Many of those same companies have facilities in Indiana. In fact, Cook International was founded by Bill Cook in Bloomington, IN, initially working out of his study in his home. Now it is an international company providing thousands of jobs across the country, in Pennsylvania, in Indiana and other places. Unfortunately, Bill passed away this year. That company is going forward. But there were five new facilities hiring that are now put on hold as a result of this tax being imposed on their gross sales--not on their profits, but on their gross sales. So you can take in $1 million, but it costs you $2 million because you are developing a new product. You lose the million and the government says: We are going to tax you on every penny that you took in regardless of whether you made a profit or not. It is just unthinkable. Thankfully, a majority of Democrats have joined us in this effort. We got 79 votes out of 100 to repeal this. Yet we are not able to vote on it. Why are we not able to vote on it? Because the White House does not want to lose that money coming in that is so egregiously taxed to pay for some of the unaffordable care act. That is one of many things that we would like to debate. We would like to vote on that. We think we can vote on some of the egregious stuff that is in this ObamaCare. The hard truth is this: Despite all of our best efforts--I want to make this point clear: Every one of 46 Republicans, our total here in the Senate, is fully 100 percent committed to the repeal, the defunding of ObamaCare. Unfortunately, it takes 51 in order to achieve our goal, unless we get some help from the other side. There is no indication of that now. We have gone through several machinations this week. There will be some votes coming up. I want the vote to be clearly a yea or a nay. People go home and they say: ``You know, do not hide behind this procedural process of cloture. We do not even know what that means.'' This is a procedural move. Over time, politicians have figured out ways to go back and say: ``No, I am really not for that.'' Or to say: ``I am not really against that. We had a procedural move. I was for this or I was against that procedural move because it denied this amendment or it did this or did that.'' The real vote is when it comes down to it--it is as old as the Bible. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Are you for ObamaCare or against ObamaCare? That is the vote we will have when the majority leader comes down here and offers a motion to strip the defunding of ObamaCare out of this bill. I do not support a shutdown. I might support a shutdown if it would achieve the goal of actually defeating ObamaCare. But the truth that has not been told to a lot of the American people, by some outside groups promoting this, is the fact that a government shutdown won't stop ObamaCare because a majority of the funding is mandatory not discretionary. Our vote on this matter will not affect that mandatory funding. All of the taxes will go forward. Much of the implementation of ObamaCare will go forward no matter how we vote on this. So that fact has to be recognized. It also has to be recognized that it does not appear that we have the votes. Certainly we do not have the votes to override a veto by the President. He is not going to say: ``Hand me a pen. I am sorry, this is a terrible idea. I see what is happening here. Yes, we should cancel this program.'' I have not heard the White House giving the indication that is what is going to happen. So those who say the vote is on a procedural motion, essentially want to shut down the government, No. 1. Maybe that would be worth it if it accomplished the goal. But to do it by not accomplishing the goal takes us nowhere. So what we are trying to do is basically say: ``Yes, let's vote to defund it. Let's vote to repeal it.'' But if that does not work, if that does not pass, then let's see if we can at least do something. I am not ready to give up. I am not ready to say: ``If we do not pass this vote on a cloture motion then that is it. We will never have a chance at this again.'' Are you kidding me? I mean, people are just learning about ObamaCare. The public sentiment is building. I commend Senator Cruz for standing up and highlighting this issue. I could not have stood here for 21 hours. I would not have made it. More power to him. He has brought this issue to us. He has focused the attention of Americans on this particular issue. But given that attention, that certainly does not mean we are going to give up. Senator Toomey and I are going to go forward. We have some provisions here that we think will make a difference. I have offered, and Senator Toomey has also offered, to delay the implementation of this. We delayed it for the employers, big business, but what about the individuals? What about the people in North Dakota, Louisiana, or Alaska, just to name a few? I know for sure Indiana and Pennsylvania. Why should we impose a mandate on individuals when we do not impose it on the businesses? The President has said: ``We cannot get our act together here with the businesses so we will give you a 1-year waiver.'' In fairness, let's give that to the individuals. That is exactly what we are about here. At this point, I would ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and it be in order to call up my amendment No. 1979. I further ask consent that the debate on the amendment be limited to up to 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, and I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on that amendment with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his efforts here. We very much share the same sentiment and the same concerns going forward here. We are going to vote sometime today, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps on Saturday. We have had a week-long effort here undertaking a very important issue, serious to the future of the American people's health and to the American economy. I think it is pretty clear that there are a couple of hard truths that we have to recognize as we come to this vote. I am still hopeful that we will be able to see at least five of our colleagues from across the aisle come and join us. For months we have heard about the impact of the health care act and the mess that it has created, the confusion, and the egregious taxes that are attached to it. My colleague has talked about the medical device tax. In Indiana, it is one of our key industries which provides high wages and skilled positions for people. These are products that are exported around the world which in turn helps our balance of trade. These products are saving the lives of millions of people. Some of these innovations that come out of Warsaw or Bloomington or other parts of Indiana, and the companies that are in this medical device business, are truly extraordinary. Yet they got socked as a ``pay for'' for ObamaCare by a 2.3 percent tax on their gross sales, not on their profits. As a company, say they are developing a new product and they come to a point where they know they are not going to make a profit for 2 or 3 years, but they know they have something that is really going to work, really going to provide life saving or life enhancing benefits. Say they lose money, but they are selling their product. The sales have not yet caught up with all of the research costs. So they report a loss at the end of year, or maybe they break even. These companies are being taxed 2.3 percent on the total amount of money that they take in, even though that money does not reach a profit. That is egregious, offensive, unbelievable. I mean, who could think up stuff like this, and who could vote for stuff like this? A repeal of this tax is one of three amendments my colleague from Pennsylvania has offered. I regret that it has been objected to. We will not even have a chance to debate it. We will not have a chance to vote on it. We will not have a chance to put down our yeas or our nays on where we stand. The real tragedy of this is that a majority of Democrats voted to repeal this egregious tax in the budget.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I certainly do not think we have been wasting time. We have been talking about an issue that is on the minds of every American as we are careening toward implementation of the ObamaCare health care plan. We have heard from Senator Cruz and others, and you will be hearing from all of us on the Republican side of the aisle as to why we object to Obamacare and why we are working so hard to open the door to repeal, to replace, to correct the inequities that exist in this particular legislation. We have had discussions about this in our caucus. We are all prepared to come and to speak. I give Senator Cruz credit for being first through the door. He chose to use all of the 30 hours. That is his right as a Senator. He brought to the attention of the American people the very issue which we are debating. I think he made some very persuasive arguments. I wish to address some of those in a minute. He also said we need to start listening to the people. Listening to the people is what all of us in the Republican Party are doing. We have heard their concerns. The majority leader of the House famously said of Obamacare: ``After it is passed we will learn what is in it.'' It was passed without any Republican support. We have now seen what is in it and how it is being fully rolled out. I take seriously the majority leader's point about moving this legislation along, so we can get this back to the House instead of sending it back Monday, the day our government runs out of money at midnight, and we can give the two chambers the opportunity to go back and forth and debate. I think that is important. So I will shorten my remarks in that regard. While I was not here when Congress passed the health care law and I was not here when this law was written in the backrooms restructuring one-sixth of our entire economy, I was watching what was happening with dismay. I was watching the world's best health care system--people from all over the world come here for their health care provisions if they have any kind of a crisis--I was watching that being wrapped into one gigantic piece of legislation that tried to take one-sixth of our entire economy and structure it into a law which, as we are finding now, just simply is not working. I have testimonials from people. I have been all over the State of Indiana. During my campaign year of 2010, this was the biggest issue. This was the issue. I visited with providers and hospitals and patients and those receiving benefits in our health care system. I can guarantee you I would not be here today if the people of Indiana thought Obamacare was a good idea, that this was in their best interests going forward. I have continued to travel across the State, meeting with people, health care providers, and citizens on the street. Their messages have poured in by the hundreds every day during the last few weeks on this issue that we are debating right now. I recently have spent the weeks back in Indiana talking to people about this. So it is very important that we not just simply rush this through or waste time--wasting time is certainly not the case. I take a backseat to no one in terms of my desire to replace this bill with something far more sensible. I have offered a number of proposals, which I think would be more sound, sensible, cost-effective, quality, effective health care proposals that many others have also put forward. To simply say there is nothing we can change, there is nothing we can address is to deny the very conclusions of many of our colleagues who originally voted for this legislation or who are still supporting this bill, the so-called train wreck coming down the line. We have to fix this. We have to make adjustments. We have to modify this law. Yet, when we get the opportunity where we have the opportunity to do that, the door is slammed shut. It is all or nothing, my way or the highway as someone said. That is the story that came from the White House. What I wish to share--and I know my colleague from Oklahoma is going to go into more detail--is how even as we have worked through this issue and had a difference of opinion in terms of how to best achieve this, the goal is to replace Obamacare. The reality we have to live up to and recognize is a hard truth: Republicans are a minority here in the Senate. We are united, every one of us, 46--46 is short of 51, and it takes 51 in order to make a change. We have seen no evidence whatsoever that any Democrat is willing to cross the aisle and join with us in trying to bring some constructive changes to this law. We are going to need at least five of them to cross that aisle and join us in a vote if we are going to make a difference, if we are going to have an opportunity to do what all 46 of us would like to do and what I think the majority of the American people would like to do. I can't speak for people in States outside of my State. Although I read the news, I think the stories are the same. I can speak for the people of Indiana. A sound majority of, Hoosiers see this bill as a disaster--a disaster for their economy, a disaster for their medical future. It is not working. We read about it every day. The exchanges have not been put in place. There are exemptions and waivers that are shamelessly given by the White House to people who get their ear, leaving others in the lurch. There are promises that have been broken repeatedly what this law will do, what it will provide, how it won't hurt, and how there will be no negative impact. The broken promises are too long to recite. I am keeping a collection of them. It is pages of promises of what this law would do. ``Fabulous'' was one of the words. None of those promises have been kept. That is why we are here fighting hard to address this issue, but we can't do it when we are a minority. We can't achieve it. It is a hard truth. It is a reality. Without five people crossing the aisle, Republicans are not going to be able to go forward. In the meantime, a government shutdown is on the verge of occuring. I wish to talk about shutting down the government. It hasn't been talked about here. We haven't looked at what the end result of a shutdown will be. As we determine, as we work through, as we decide how to move forward tactically to achieve what we want to achieve, keep in mind that the President of the United States has not said: Gee, Americans, I am sorry, that Affordable Care Act was a big mistake. Give me a pen, let me sign this bill that repeals this, and let's start over. We will work together, and we will do it in a bipartisan manner this time. I haven't heard that coming out of the White House, and I don't expect to hear that coming out of the White House. I have heard exactly the opposite. And I haven't heard that message from our friends across the aisle instead we have heard exactly the opposite. The reality is that we have to determine how we would go forward. Some of us would like to take a vote. We would like to put Members on record as to whether they support funding Obamacare. We would like that record to be put forth to the American people, and in the next election they can decide whom they want to send back to Congress. Do they want to send somebody back here who supports ObamaCare or do they want to send somebody back here who opposes ObamaCare? The reality is that we are not going to go for a year with a government shutdown. I wish to speak a little bit about the consequences of a shutdown, and I think we need to weigh some of this information in terms of what we do so that we understand the reality that exists, the hard truth that exists. No. 1, shutting down the government will not stop ObamaCare. It will not stop ObamaCare. The Congressional Research Service, at the request of Senator Coburn, who will be speaking next, has given us a nonpartisan report that simply says the majority of the funding for ObamaCare is not under our control. It is mandatory. It is automatic. The 13 or 14 taxes in this bill don't get stopped, so the American people keep getting taxed for this law, and significantly more than half of it--I think Senator Coburn will be able to go into more detail on this--we can't even affect. So, No. 1, whatever we do here will not stop ObamaCare from moving forward, which is why some of us have tried to look at, OK, what is the next step, what is the next alternative? We don't have the votes to defeat it. We would need 13 Democrats to come across the aisle to support a sure veto by the President should 5 of our friends decide to support us in this effort. The reality is that we will need 13 Democrats to override a Presidential veto, and I don't think we are going to get those. In fact, I am sure we won't. What does a government shutdown mean? Let's discuss this. I attended a deployment ceremony about a month ago in Indiana where we sent some of our brave men and women to Afghanistan. If we shut down the government, their spouses at home will not get a paycheck. Trying to hold down the home, maybe raising two or three children, paying the bills, with a husband over in Afghanistan in harm's way, putting his life on the line for our defense--they don't get paid. That is a consequence of a shutdown. Veterans lining up for the benefits they deserve and the care they need when they come home from the battlefield are going to be standing in a long line waiting for their applications to be processed. People waiting for Social Security checks and Medicare checks and Medicare reimbursements--even though those will be coming, as we have learned from past shutdowns, the staff won't be there to process them on a timely basis. We have a major naval facility in Indiana. Six thousand people work at Crane. They are doing cutting-edge work on electronic warfare and prevention of IED casualties. They are the go-to place for commanders who need something tomorrow. We have engineers and contractors down there with Ph.D.s and master's degrees from Purdue University, Rose- Hulman, and a number of schools around the country. I have heard from the Chief of Naval Operations, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force--this is the go-to place for our armed services to fulfill a commander's request on how to save the lives of the people they are commanding, and they have an incredible record down at Crane of finding solutions--usually through electronic warfare initiatives--solutions to problems that are saving American lives. These workers will be furloughed. Those people won't be able to work. When the commander calls in and says ``I need this next week. My guys are dying. I need a way to stop it,'' he will be told ``Sorry, the government is shut down.'' Our defense contractors who work in those areas talked to me about how critically important it is to have this capacity to save American lives, to help us as we address conflicts around the world and provide a defense for the American people. Those people will not be paid; they will not be at work. There are some major drug manufacturers and medical device companies in Indiana. They have products waiting to be approved by the FDA, lifesaving products, improving-health products. Those will not be processed if we shut down. I could go on and on. I wish to add one more. The last time we had a shutdown we had 10,000 Medicare applicants. We hear about 10,000 baby boomers every day. In the last shutdown the number was far less than this, but today, because 10,000 Americans are retiring every day--those applicants in our past shutdown were all turned away. So people who have been paying into Medicare, people who have been waiting to enroll when they turn 65--it will all be put on a hold. A government shutdown suspends the hiring of local law enforcement and border security officials. We had a great debate, a long debate, a contentious debate, and an important debate about how we need to tighten our border and get more agents on the border to deal with our immigration problem. That will all be suspended. Before we rush to judgment on how we ought to go forward, I would suggest that we think about this. I would suggest that we think about the fact that whatever we do here doesn't stop Obamacare implementation. Whatever decision we make has consequences. We do need to fund this government, and we know we are not going to shut down this government for the next 3 years and 4 months until we get a new President, so something has to give. I didn't sleep through Senator Cruz's 30-hour discussion. First, I commend him for bringing the issue up here and his passion about it. This isn't a question of whether we are for or against, this is a question of tactics, how we can best achieve our goal. I paid attention. I wasn't here because obviously he was going to hold the floor for the full 30-hour time. This is why I am speaking now instead of yesterday or last evening. All I could have done last evening was ask a question. I tuned in. I didn't hear everything. I did get some sleep last night, but I listened to a fair part of what he said. One of the things that caught my attention was when Senator Rand Paul asked what I thought was a very pertinent question relative to what is the end game here. At some point--we are not going to shut the government down forever. Somebody, something has to give. He asked: Senator Cruz, would you be willing to consider some compromise? That got my attention because I have offered a compromise. If the repeal failed and we couldn't get the Democrats to come across the aisle, couldn't get the President to change his mind, which I didn't think we could, maybe there some options or things we could accomplish. I joined with the Congressman from southern Indiana, Todd Young, and introduced the same bill that passed the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. I introduced it here in the Senate. The Senate minority leader liked it. It calls for a 1-year delay in the individual mandate. The President has already said he is going to give employers a 1-year delay. If he is going to give employers a 1-year delay to work out the messy details of all of this and to try to come to a better resolution--acknowledging a failure of the bill and a failure of the administration to get this put into place how is it fair to impose it on individuals when he is giving employers a break? A lot of people are getting kicked off their employer's insurance because of the definition of a full-time worker. That is another issue where amendments have been offered on a bipartisan basis, but we will not be able to discuss it. This 1-year delay for individuals will give us an opportunity to vet and work through these important issues. This compromise is the next best thing because we can't achieve the best thing, which would be defunding. If it turns out that we can't fund Obamacare, at some point we are going to have to look at some type of compromise. I think, Senator Paul asked a legitimate question. Shouldn't we be looking at some type of compromise that keeps this issue alive, gives us a chance to continue to debate this law and other attempts to change, modify, reform, repeal, replace, whatever, and ultimately put it in front of the American people in 2014 and say: Where do you want to go with this? Well, people say we did this in 2012. In 2012 much of Obamacare had not been implemented. People didn't understand what was in it. There is still great confusion about this law, but we are learning more every day. By 2014--now that this is being implemented, we are learning a lot. What we have learned we don't like. It is even worse than we thought, worse than our worst nightmares. The American people will have a chance to decide at the poll whether they want to continue going forward with ObamaCare or whether they want something different. I think the result will speak for itself. Maybe that is the reason why they want to rush this thing through, they didn't want to face that possibility. But at least that is the possibility of something that may gain bipartisan support, and may put us on a path to addressing this issue. If we are not willing to come up with some alternative for which we can get bipartisan support in order to keep this government going so we can pay those spouses whose husbands or wives are in the line of duty overseas serving this country, how can we tell them they are not going to get paid? You have to stay on duty, you can't come home and take another job, you can't take off your uniform. They are overseas putting their lives on the line. As ambassador to Germany, I spent time at Landstuhl, the hospital in Germany that cares for all the wounded and critically wounded troops, just hours after an IED has taken off their legs or their arms. In visiting those soldiers, I can't help but think how we tell them they are not going to get their pay because Washington says that if a goal is not achieved now, that is it. The government is shut down. So I am just asking my colleagues, before we make a decision on this now, to consider those spouses at home raising kids while their husband or wife is on the front line of duty. Better think about those veterans coming home who need help, who have brain injuries or wounds that need to be addressed. You need to think about those people turning 65 and retiring and who want to apply now for Medicare because their company has dropped them. You need to think about those individuals out there who will be mandated while employers get a break. You need to think about all the consequences here before we rush to some kind of false judgment that a shutdown isn't going to really affect us. It is. The President is not going to take the microphone and say: Folks, I am so sorry. I am so sorry I brought this health care law forward. This thing isn't working. I am hearing it, too, I am hearing it back home. So, yes, let's reopen the government and repeal and replace the health care law. I wish he would, but we know he won't say that. I am asking my colleagues to weigh all these things before we come to a final conclusion on this and let us not be lured into the seduction of saying this vote will determine whether or not we will ever be able to deal with this Obamacare issue. And this is not even a substantive vote. It is not even a vote on the issue itself. It is simply a vote on moving forward to debate. It is nearly impossible to explain our procedural motions around here But this isn't an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare, this is a procedural vote. I know Senator Cruz would like to turn it into ``the vote'' in order to prevent something else from happening. I personally think that is a tactic that won't work, but we share the same goal. I am not criticizing Senator Cruz. He has energized people, he has brought this issue forward, and I support that. But let's think about the end game and let's think about what may or may not be accomplished by our decisions and let's make sure we weigh the consequences of our next action and its impact on the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, yesterday the President indicated that we need to pivot back to the fiscal issues facing this country and facing Congress. This comes after a year with little sense of urgency on perhaps the most pressing and challenging domestic issue before us. Of course, issues such as Syria and foreign policy have to be addressed, but we have had a year in this Congress to address our fiscal issues knowing we were moving toward a drop-dead date fiscally of September 30, and here we are now, more than halfway through September, just beginning to take up these issues that will direct the fiscal future of this country. The clock is ticking away, and we have spent little time preparing for what is coming. But here we are once again careening toward another fiscal cliff. The American people are sick and tired of this. I think the Senate and the Congress are sick and tired of doing this. Yet we find ourselves once again careening up against a deadline to provide funding to keep our economy moving forward and to keep our government providing essential services. Clearly, we could all argue there are a number of things that don't need to be funded or can be postponed, but there are essential functions of the Federal Government that can't be handled any other way and must be funded. National security is one of those top priorities, along with homeland security. We continue to have issues in terms of providing safety for American workers in the workplace, such as the tragedy that occurred yesterday at the Naval Yard, and these all come under the rubric of providing law enforcement and homeland security enforcement for our people. These are essential functions of government, and unless we come to some agreement by the end of this month, we are going to shut all that down. Our troops won't get paid, our homeland security personnel won't get paid, and a whole number of other essential functions will not be able to take place. So we have a lot of work before us and very little time to do it. We also know that very quickly--shortly after the end of this month-- if we don't pass an ongoing resolution to provide funding while we work out some of our differences, we will also reach the national debt limit. We are going to have to address whether or not to raise it and, if so, how much to raise the current borrowing limit. Today we are looking at an unimaginable national debt of $16.7 trillion, and it is growing every day. All of us who have seen the debt clock ticking away are astounded at the rate we spend and how much we have to borrow in order to cover our spending because the revenues do not match the spending. Washington has had this spending addiction for decades, as if money just falls from trees or can just be printed down at the Fed and we won't have to pay any financial consequences. We have had 5 years of stagnant growth in our economy, timid progress that is not putting people back to work. Our economy is not working well. Yet we are still spending way beyond our means. That also has to be addressed. In the last 20 years Federal spending has grown 63 percent faster than inflation. So it is clear that without changes, mandatory spending, including net interest, is going to consume three- fourths of the Federal budget in just one decade. Almost half of that Federal spending will go toward Social Security and health care entitlements. In 2002 that percentage was 25 percent, and now it is 45 percent. Far too little has been done to address this runaway spending train. Instead of waiting for a crisis to hit, instead of governing from one fiscal cliff to another, isn't it time we worked together on a plan to reduce our debt and curb the rate of mandatory spending? This is a matter of extreme importance. It can't be solved with a deal at the eleventh hour. There has been a lot of talk around here about putting us on a path to fiscal solvency but no real action, and the clock continues to tick. I would like to ask the President and the Senate majority leader at what point they think we should start acting on a plan to reduce our debt--$17 trillion, $20 trillion, $25 trillion? At what point, Mr. President, do we say this is unsustainable? This is driving us toward insolvency. We need to take action. How much red ink is too much? When will the President draw a redline on debt and borrowing? When pressed, the President says he actually has a fiscal plan: just continue to raise taxes, pass another one of his stimulus spending plans--the last one didn't work too well--and adopt his budget proposal that doesn't even have the support of his own party. Clearly, the President is unwilling to lead on addressing our fiscal crisis. Absent his leadership, I am urging my colleagues in the Senate, Republican and Democratic, to focus on this important issue. Let's put something on the President's desk and ask him to either sign it or reject it. But let's stop waiting for the White House to come forward with a plan because their plan is going nowhere. It doesn't have the support of either side of this body, Republicans or Democrats. I am urging the majority leader to focus the Senate's attention on reducing our debt, growing our economy, and getting Americans back to work. The best way to grow the economy and secure our country's fiscal future is by creating a long-term budget plan that focuses on restructuring mandatory spending programs, reforming our Tax Code, and cutting unnecessary Federal spending. This has been a mantra of mine ever since I came back to the Senate. I came back for this very reason, and here we are 3 years after the 2010 election, when the public was urging us to address this issue, and we still have not accomplished this task. It is because we have not had leadership from this President to address the underlying issues that are so plain, that are so evident, that are so consequential to our fiscal future. When we boil it down to what it means to American families, whether it be saving money to send their kids to college, getting a decent job after they graduate with a huge debt and being able to pay that back or getting middle-class people back to work who have been laid off for years, getting our economy moving again at more than a timid 1.8 percent or 1.5 percent, stumbling along after 5 years of recession--the policies, whether we think they are right, frankly, haven't worked. Isn't it time to deal with something everyone knows we need to deal with; that is, excessive spending, this addiction to spending, the plunging into debt that is holding us back from doing what we need to do. I am committed to working toward a solution to address our debt, to strengthen our economy, and help provide full-time jobs for the millions of Americans who are without those jobs. It is time to stop procrastinating. It is time to start acting. It is time that the President and this Congress stop delaying the hard choices and start representing the American people who sent us. It is so unfortunate that we cannot rely on the President--the leader of our country--to act. He has announced he would not even discuss this incredibly important issue that determines the financial viability of our country. The President says: I will not negotiate with Congress on the debt limit. I will not negotiate with Congress on the resolution coming before us to fund the government going forward. How does this provide results to the American people? How can we work on a plan to reduce the debt if the President refuses to even negotiate it? He is willing to negotiate with President Putin of Russia, but he refuses to negotiate with Congress on how we can address our rising debt. This isn't leadership. We can't rely on Putin to pull us out of this one. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the issues the majority leader just addressed. I don't anticipate speaking for more than 12 to 15 minutes. I know the minority leader is delayed in being able to be here. I would be happy to defer to him when he arrives or I would be happy to defer to someone coming back to speak on the business of the day.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, President Obama will finally make his case to the American people tomorrow, explaining why he wants to take military action against Syria. His explanation is long overdue. I think I have a pretty good idea of what I expect he will say. First, he will explain that we have compelling evidence that it was Asad himself who used long-banned chemical weapons to murder his own people. This is not seriously contested. Neither I nor perhaps I think any of my colleagues here dispute these sad facts. It has been well documented by our intelligence sources. As a member of that committee, I have had access to those sources, and I don't doubt the conclusion of the President and others that Asad is responsible for this attack. The President will also most likely explain that such a horrendous violation of international norms deserves a worldwide response of condemnation. Who could possibly look at those standards and those rooms full of dead children and not agree that the perpetrators have to face consequences for their crimes? The President will also surely discuss the issue of credibility. He is likely to maintain, as he did recently in Stockholm, that it is not his own credibility at stake, nor even American credibility, but the credibility of the international community that will be harmed by inaction. I agree with those who say the President's credibility and our Nation's credibility are linked. They are. However, with his now notorious and, I believe, ill-considered ``red line'' comment, President Obama has forced us to debate a military attack in yet another Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately, it appears that the purpose of this military attack first and foremost is perhaps to defend his own credibility. I am certain that if the President had not drawn his red line, we would not be having this discussion. In that case, Asad's use of such weapons would be roundly condemned as yet another example of his horrendous brutality, but we would be no more eager to engage militarily in his civil war than we have been as the other 100,000 Syrian people were being slaughtered by more conventional means. Make no mistake--it is the credibility issue that has brought us to this pass, and the credibility issue is of President Obama's own making--his and his alone. So tomorrow evening the President will need to explain to the American public exactly what will be achieved by this limited, focused attack, as described by the administration, beyond simply a token punishment for a horrendous crime in defense of his credibility. The President has said the proposed limited attack is to be a ``shot across the bow.'' His Secretary of State, Secretary Kerry, has said it is going to be unbelievably small. We need to know what the plan is, and will be, should President Asad be undeterred by this unbelievably small, shot-across-the-bow attack. What if he isn't? What then? What do we do next? The President needs to explain that. We need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist radical fighters now active in Syria--extremist radical fighters. There is not a line between good guys and bad guys here. There is the infiltration of Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, and other terrorist organizations and individuals with those seeking to overturn Asad. So it is not clear just how Syria will turn out should Asad be deposed. I don't think these extremist fighters will be overly concerned with an ``unbelievably small, shot across the bow'' response by the United States. What will Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda affiliate fighters do when this ``show of force'' is over? What is the President's plan of action if the chemical weapons fall into the hands of these anti-American jihadists? And how about the always-threatened spillover of the Syria conflict into Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan? Will an attack intended to slap Asad's wrist while defending President Obama's credibility make expansion of the conflict more likely or less likely? Most importantly, the President needs to explain to the American people more thoroughly exactly how America's national security and best interests will be served by this response. The President, in my opinion, must also address additional concerns that are widely--almost universally--shared by the American people. We all know that taking America to war without support from the people is the surest path to disaster. I suggest this must be avoided, and the President is going to have to make his case as to how to avoid that. Over this last week I visited with Hoosiers from across Indiana to gather their input. Through these visits, as well as calls and e-mails by the thousands, the vast majority--shockingly, the majority of Hoosiers I have heard from are opposed to U.S. military engagement in Syria. As all conscientious lawmakers, I know I have to balance the views of my constituents with my own judgment on how best to represent their interests and the interests of our country. In this case, I must first ask myself, what do the people back home in my State know that many of the rest of us here in Washington perhaps do not, or at least have expressed? First, the people back home know that America has been at war in far- off lands for more than a decade--12 years on. They have seen long repeated deployments of their loved ones, and they have seen the body bags come home. They are aware of sacrifices that have been made in the name of protecting our interests, but they are less aware of positive results of those sacrifices. They see Iraq descending again into conflict as its own citizens continue to slaughter one another because of different interpretations of the Koran or different political motivations or just pure outright quests for power. They see a corrupt government there that authorizes overflights of Russian aircraft bringing modern weapons to Syria to fuel a similar conflict. Hoosiers see an Afghanistan so deeply corrupt and ungrateful to the United States that the current regime tries to extort huge ransom payments simply to permit us to remove equipment and personnel from that sorry country. They do not see meaningful progress toward a democratic, stable, and humane government that was to be the objective of American sacrifice of blood and treasure. They do not see how our 12 years of effort have contributed to our own national security interests. Hoosiers look at the spiraling disaster in Egypt, where the choices have been an extremist, deeply anti-American Islamic radicalism or a brutal and undemocratic military dictatorship. both benefiting from billions of American taxpayer dollars spent on weapons or lining uniform pockets. In the meantime, fellow Christians are being killed in their churches. Simply put, the people of Indiana do not see that American policy and action have attained meaningful results in the Middle East. Instead, they see a region of continuing and increasing violence, chaos, and disintegration. They are war weary and they are discouraged after more than a decade of wars that have not produced the desired outcomes. What they do not see is an articulate response. They do not know what our regional strategy is in the Middle East because no one is explaining it, much less pursuing it. They cannot measure progress because they do not know the destination. And they cannot evaluate this latest proposal for a fourth military engagement in the Middle East because they cannot see how it contributes to our own security here at home. More importantly, they worry that a focused, limited attack on Syria will end up being something else entirely because so little thought has been devoted to potential unintended consequences. Yes, they are war weary, but the American people are also war wise. In addition to the above unanswered questions, for me, one of the most important questions is how this proposed limited strike will affect Iran's perception of our resolve and our ability to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It is not so much what we do or how we do it but how Iran perceives the action we take. This may be the most significant question of all because, unlike Syria, Iran poses threats to our core national security interests. Part of the administration's argument is that to do nothing would embolden the Iranian regime as they pursue their own weapons-of-mass- destruction programs. But I think we have to raise the question, is that really so, or is it, perhaps, the reverse? Will a limited punitive attack discourage the mullahs in Iran because of some degree of destruction--remember, unbelievably small--or will it actually encourage the Iranians because there is no followup option or broader strategic context informing our policy? If an attack is ineffective in altering Asad's behavior or fortune, will it not actually encourage Iran in pursuing its own weapons program? I have not heard the administration address this question. Also, will a fourth military engagement in the Middle East make it harder to assemble popular and political support for action should Iran's behavior make that necessary? My constant fear here during the past several years, as I have been engaged on the Iranian issue of the pursuit of nuclear weapons, has been that our country will be too militarily, politically, and economically exhausted to confront the real strategic enemy when our core interests require it. I fear a Syria attack will make this problem even more difficult. To my knowledge, no one has yet to address this question within the administration, which President Obama, like the previous three Presidents, has declared a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran to be ``unacceptable.'' I think this is a critical question we must have to ask ourselves. For all of those who are saying: We will change the perception of Iran to the point where they will change their behavior in the pursuit of nuclear weapons by a, quote, unbelievably small shot across the bow or a military response that could lead us into further conflict in the Middle East--I think this undermines our credibility. I think the question has to be asked: Is the reverse going to happen as a consequence of all of this? This is a deeply historic and profound moment for our Nation. It carries an importance that goes well beyond Syria or even the Middle East. This debate carries important consequences for the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of our government. To refuse the Commander in Chief war-making authorities when he has asked for them is not a decision any of us can take lightly. We must all balance the views of the people we represent--even when they have been nearly unanimous--with other elements, such as the abstract, unknowable geostrategic factors that could carry profound consequences not just for this year or next year, for this generation, but for many generations; and such as the compelling moral arguments that resonate with special strength in our unique Nation guided from birth by moral principles; and now even the constitutional challenges that could affect the delicate balance we have maintained for two centuries. I will weigh all I have said before I announce how I intend to vote on the resolution before us. I will defer to the President's request to address the Nation. In my opinion, consequential actions proposed by the President need to be clarified and numerous questions need to be answered before we grant the authority to the President to engage America in yet another Middle East conflict. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a new Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. I have a real problem with the individual who has been nominated to direct that Agency. I will cast my vote shortly, but I want to take the opportunity here to talk about the EPA, an Agency that I think has exceeded the authority given to it by this body, it has overstepped its role and its bounds, and has had an enormous negative impact on my State and on our country. The overreach, the regulation after regulation and rule after rule that has come out of EPA may have achieved some benefit in some places, but these benefits have come nowhere close to exceeding their costs. The Competitive Enterprise Institute totals EPA regulations at roughly $350 billion a year, making it the single most expensive rulemaking agency in government. This is particularly relevant now, because a vote on the new Administrator is before us and I think it is important that we focus on what the EPA's impact has been over the last 4 or 5 years and what the EPA rules and regulations have imposed upon our economy. Whether it is the war on fossil fuels, whether it is the war on the production of energy, or any of a number of other issues that have been brought forward through their rules and regulations, the EPA has had a serious negative impact on our ability to be an energy-secure, energy- efficient, and low-cost Nation. Our country has taken great strides to improve air quality over the years. To date, the utility industry has spent over $100 billion in capital investment for air pollution controls which have resulted in significant declines in emissions. By singling out these providers and effectively prohibiting coal-fired electricity generation, the administration is putting our economic well-being, grid reliability, and American jobs at risk. Air quality and energy production don't have to be at war with each other. They don't need to be incompatible. We can, and must, achieve both. But we also must have some flexibility and transparency from this administration and its rulemaking agencies if we are going to accomplish that goal. I applaud my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, for his persistence in seeking responses from the EPA. So often this Agency researches benefits and secondary benefits but does not reveal a detailed economic analysis of the true costs associated with their rules. Senator Vitter's work in getting a commitment from the Agency to convene independent economic experts to examine the Agency's economic model is something that I believe needs to be done. I think the administration should welcome this, because we are trying to find that balance between putting people back to work, getting our economy moving again, and imposing, yes, necessary health and safety regulations but not one at the cost of the other. These can be compatible. Senator Manchin and I, on a bipartisan basis, have sought not to give the electricity coal-fired plants across our country--and many of which are in our respective States--an excuse not to comply with the clean air laws, but simply to extend the time in which they are mandated to bring new pollution control measures onboard. Some of these industries are halfway through the production process of doing this. They have made the commitment. All we asked for was a temporary waiver--nothing to do with achieving the goal, but a temporary waiver to give them a little more extra time to comply and finish what they were doing. Some of these coal plants were in the middle of installing extremely expensive air pollution control measures. Yet the hard and fast rule imposed upon them by the EPA--with no ability to give them a waiver for demonstrated good-faith effort to comply--and because they couldn't get all the construction and implementation made by a certain date, they now have to switch to another source of fuel or shut down. Many had to shut down, at significant economic impact not just to my State but to many States, particularly those States that have heavy manufacturing that needs a lot of electricity. So while I don't want to go into great detail in terms of which specific regulations and rules ought to be looked at and given some flexibility, I want to make the larger point that if we are sincere about dealing with issues and policies that will allow us to achieve economic growth and put more people back to work, we need to have responsible rules and regulations--not this onslaught of rules and regulations that continues to come out of EPA, some of which seem driven by ideology rather than by effective cost-benefit analysis--with the understanding that we are in a precarious economic time. We have a lot of people out of work, and that delay or an advancement of time in which to achieve certain regulations and a sincere evaluation on the basis of what is the real cost-benefit of going forward with this ought to be imposed. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to say how much I respect the Senator from Florida. I respect his viewpoint. I respect the amount of effort he has put into this issue, which is a very difficult and a very complex issue. He speaks from the heart. I have never questioned his motives, and he has worked very hard to put together the very best piece of legislation that I think could have been accomplished on this Senate floor. I wish I could stand with him in terms of final support because I, too, believe our current system is broken, that it needs to be addressed. The status quo is not an option. We will continue down the same road, and only to a greater degree than where we find ourselves today. I am deeply concerned. For me, the most difficult of things to work through--it finally came down to the fact that, as Senator Rubio has talked about, there is a great level of distrust in this country today toward whatever comes out of Washington and whomever's mouth it comes out of. I think some of this is due to certain events that have happened in the last several months. Benghazi is still not settled. The American people still are not satisfied with what has been said about what happened in Benghazi and what our response should have been. There have been changing narratives. That feeds into the distrust. Certainly, there are the scandals--the IRS scandal and others continue to feed this distrust. It is a very dangerous thing for a democracy when people have lost trust in their elected Representatives, in their government. It is a very dangerous thing for the future. We need to restore that. To me, that element that now exists means when we take up legislation as comprehensive as this bill is, as sweeping as this bill is, we need to ensure the American people understand it and that they have trust in us that what we promise we will do in this bill will be fulfilled. All this, from my perspective, has to be measured against the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, which I voted for and supported. Ronald Reagan was President at the time. We had a divided Congress--Republicans and Democrats. This Senate was under one party and the House was under another. So the situation was somewhat similar to today. But with President Reagan's leadership, and with the promises that were made, the 3 million people who were here illegally at that time were granted an opportunity to get on a path to citizenship--and it was combined with the fact that we promised in that bill, verbally and in language, that we would secure the border so we would not have to deal with this again. Well, here we are in 2013 dealing with it again, but there are not 3 million illegal immigrants; there are now 11 million illegal immigrants. It is having an enormous impact on our country, and it is an issue which we have to address. But I think we have to do it in a way that acknowledges that the promises made then were not fulfilled. When added today to the broken promises and the growing level of distrust than any of us could possibly imagine, that has to be addressed. The way, in my opinion, to address that is--to borrow from Ronald Reagan trust, but verify. I think verify, because of this trust deficit, has to come first before people are ready to trust. They simply do not believe that the promises made will work, that they will be fulfilled. When the underlying bill basically says the Secretary of Homeland Security will state that the Department has a strategy to address the border security problem, that does not play very well with people who have seen strategies promised before. They want to see results. The real issue here has been--at least for me, and I think for many of my colleagues--whether we are able to prove to the American people they are going to get their results before we start moving people through a legalization process which we know we are never going to be able to pull back. There were some amendments offered by my colleagues which I supported because essentially they said we want to look at results first before we begin the process--from which we are never going to be able to pull back--of granting legal status for illegal immigrants in this country. So it is that cart before the horse that, for me at least, and I think for many, is the reason why we cannot support this bill as it is currently written. I hope the House will come forward with something more credible, perhaps more sequential, that addresses this very fundamental flaw in this bill to prove to the American people that we will fulfill the promises we are making in this legislation before we start a process of granting legal status to illegals. We need to ensure we will not get years down the road only to find we have not succeeded in fulfilling those promises, and have created yet another amnesty situation. I am the son of an immigrant. My mother came here with her family. It has been the narrative in our family that legal immigration is what has made America the country that it is. So I do not fear immigration. The diversity has been good for our country. I served as Ambassador to Germany for 4 years, and I cannot tell you how many Germans and Europeans from other countries came up to me and basically said: Someday I hope to get in the lottery, that my name will be pulled. I have been in line for 15 years; I have been in line for 20 years waiting to come to your country through a legal immigration process. It is pretty hard, when you are the son of an immigrant--you know your family came here the right way--to know there are millions of people in this world who would love to come to America and become responsible citizens, and yet to see them look at people flooding across the borders and being granted that privilege which they have not yet been able to attain. So I trust that we will be able to go forward. I hope the House will come forward with something that is more credible than what the Senate is poised to pass. I voted earlier for a procedural motion to allow debate on this issue because I think we need to have this debate. I was hoping that we could address this fundamental issue through the amendment process. The employee verification has been strengthened, the border security has been strengthened, the exit visa problem has been strengthened, assuming the promises come true, but they have only been strengthened on a piece of paper. We need to see it strengthened for real on the border, at the employment offices, and at the exit visa offices on the portals for people coming in and out of this country. That is yet to be seen. That is yet to be demonstrated. So without that fundamental approach of demonstrating results first in order to restore that trust, which is so lacking with the American people--yet justified, on the failures of Congress and the failures of this administration, in particular, or any administration to deliver what they said they would and--to fulfill their promises--that is why I will not be supporting the bill. I do hope, given the problems we have with the status quo--as I think was clearly outlined by my colleague from Florida--we need to keep at this. We need to find the solution to the problem because America cannot continue to be the country that it is and be the country that we want it to be if we do not address this wound and this flaw in the current immigration system. We need the ability to attract and maintain people with skills for many of our businesses. Some of our most important industries-- pharmaceutical, software, and others--important to our national defense and national security need those employees coming here the legal way through visas. We also need our agriculture industries and others to have access to workers. I have a lot of processing plants in my State and agricultural sources in my State that cannot find enough American workers to fill the positions they have offered. That ought to be addressed. I want to address that. So I am not simply someone standing up and saying we do not have to fix the problem. We do have to fix the problem. I respect the efforts that have been made in a bipartisan way to try to do that. I just think this bill has one major fatal flaw; that is, promises are not demonstrated, are not fulfilled, before the process starts. For that reason, I cannot support the bill in its final form. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss recent national security leaks by a former NSA contractor by the name of Edward Snowden. His name is known now throughout the world. Some have praised Snowden as a hero and a whistleblower. I do not. Anyone who violates their sworn oath to not disclose classified information and then leaks national security documents that compromise our intelligence operations and harm our country's ability to prevent future terrorist attacks should neither be called a hero nor a whistleblower. What Snowden has done borders on treason, and I believe he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. President, it is no secret we have a serious trust deficit in this country with the Federal Government. I understand the concerns and the fears of my constituents and the American people relative to some of the things that have occurred here that lead them to question their trust in their elected officials or in their government. There has been a series of scandals over the past several months, including but not limited to the IRS targeting conservative groups, the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the ever-changing responses from this administration regarding the attacks on Americans in Benghazi. We still don't have the full story, and the narrative keeps bouncing around with change after change after change. So I understand this distrust the American people have about anything that comes out of Washington, DC. A lot of this is being fueled by mischaracterizations and misrepresentations in the media, grabbing onto whatever is said in the Guardian. Of course, the Guardian says, and people hear: This is what is happening to your country. This is what is happening with your government. They are violating your civil rights and violating your privacy. But none of us stand for that, nor will we stand for that. But in their rush to be the first to break the news of the NSA or other classified programs, to break it first online or on the air, the media has fueled this distrust of the American people by misrepresenting the facts. Contrary to what some news reports and other sources have said, let me say this for the record: The government is not and cannot indiscriminately listen in on any Americans' phone calls. It is not targeting the e-mails of innocent Americans. It is not indiscriminately collecting the content of their conversations. And it is not tracking the location of innocent Americans through cell towers or their cell phones. There are civil liberties and privacy protections built into this program that are now being released in great detail, and it is important the American people understand those and know what they are. We have to understand this careful balancing act between protecting classified methods and sources to the detriment of losing that information, losing lives, identifying sources, and compromising programs, and the need to reassure the American people we are following the law and following the constitutional right of Americans to privacy. All of this has to be put in the right context. As a side note, let me just simply say, Mr. President, that it is ironic that a lot of American private companies seem to have more information about us than the government does. They may have a phone number, but many of the private companies know what we like to eat, where we shop, what we like to wear, what movies we order, where we like to vacation, and we are flooded with marketing attempts to use the information they have collected against us. But that is not what the NSA is doing under these programs and the programs in question. These programs are in place solely for the purpose of detecting communications between terrorists who are operating outside of our country but communicating with operatives potentially within the United States. The intelligence community neither has the time nor the inclination nor the authority to track people's Internet activity or pry into their private lives. Even if someone is suspected, by the way, of a phone call match with a foreign terrorist and someone residing or living in America and suspected of having a link to terrorism, the government can go no further than the court to get an order to investigate any other information or material about them. And let's not forget why these programs are there in the first place. Following the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, America realized it needed to greatly improve our intelligence efforts and communications among our agencies--we were facing a different kind of war. This wasn't two States lining up against each other. This wasn't addressing wars from the past. This was a whole new way that enemies were attacking Americans on our homeland. We needed to modernize our approach, and we needed to connect the dots before a terrorist attack occurred again at the level of 9/11 or others. In fact, had these programs been available to NSA before that September date, I believe we could have identified some or all of the hijackers. When one of the September 11 hijackers called a contact in Yemen from San Diego, we could have identified them through this program. We could have prevented the terrorists from boarding those planes and blowing up the World Trade Center, striking the Pentagon, crashing into a field in Pennsylvania, and killing thousands of Americans. These programs connect the dots and have successfully thwarted dozens of terrorist attacks. They are some of the most effective tools available to protect our country from terrorist organizations like al- Qaida. That is why I find it so troubling and, frankly, irresponsible for the media and others to distort the nature of these counterterrorism programs. These programs are legal, constitutional, and utilized only under the strict oversight of both parties and all three branches of government, including a highly scrutinized judicial process. In the end, these programs rely on the trust of the American people. And with that trust lacking today, I am asking my fellow Members of Congress, as well as the media, to fact- check first before mischaracterizing programs that save lives. I believe we can--and we must--protect both security and liberty when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, and I believe these programs do just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I appreciate what he has said about this issue. This is a debate we need to undertake, and we are doing so. We are doing it in a way that the Senate in my previous experience has essentially dealt with legislation. We have brought it to the floor and it has come through the regular process. The committee has held extensive hearings on the issue. There is a national debate going on. We are hearing from our constituents back at home. I am not on the committee that has jurisdiction here, but I have been following it carefully in terms of what has been presented, the bill that has been drafted, the amendments that have been offered, which ones have succeeded, and which ones haven't. This is a major issue which deserves and is getting--unlike most of what has happened here in the last couple of years--a thorough debate, with opportunities to offer amendments, with opportunities to work to find ways to address concerns about the current legislation before us. That is why I voted for the motion to proceed. This is an issue that needs to be discussed so that, hopefully, a system we know is broken--I think there is pretty much unanimous agreement on the fact our current immigration system is full of flaws and has not achieved what was promised when the initial legislation was passed. It needs to be fixed because the status quo simply perpetuates and adds to the problem we have with illegal immigration and all the impacts on our country, including the distrust of the American people. So, hopefully, we are going to come forward with credible legislation this time to address the real problems. So I am pleased we are having this debate. We are a Nation of immigrants. It is part of our rich history. While all of those who have come to our shores over the decades may have different stories and a different journey, most share a common goal. They want the opportunity to live in a free society. They want to advance economically. They want to pursue the American dream. They want to provide for their children and their children's children the freedoms and the opportunities that exist in America. The American dream is a reality that is available for people to achieve if given the opportunity to work hard. I am the son of an immigrant. My mother's family came here to the United States legally in search of a better life and better opportunities not just for themselves but for their children and generations to follow. What my mother learned and passed down to her children is that with these freedoms granted to us as American citizens come responsibilities. We have the responsibility to cherish and defend our Constitution. We have the responsibility to be engaged citizens in our communities. We have the responsibility to vote and take part in the electoral process and, we have a responsibility to come to the aid of our neighbors in need. We have been, and hopefully will continue to be, a compassionate country--a country that believes all human beings are created equal and that our rights are endowed not by a king, not by a President, not by a government, but by God. In America, it doesn't matter where one comes from or what one's last name may be. If given the opportunity and the chance, a person can succeed, and that is what sets us apart from so many other countries. That is what makes us a shining light, a beacon to the rest of the world, and it is that light that attracts so many to our shores with hopes and dreams of a better future. During my time as Ambassador to Germany, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, made many visits. One of those visits included a stop on the way back from a trip to India. As we were riding from the airport to his first appointment, he shared with me something that I think pretty much says it all about the world's view of America. He was talking to me about how we sometimes see people holding demonstrations and protests against America. He said, but, you know, as I was traveling in the motorcade down the main street, there was an Indian citizen there with a huge sign in big, bold letters that said ``Yankee, go home.'' And in parentheses, right underneath those bold letters, it said, ``and please take me with you.'' I think that little story illustrates how much of the world views America: a place they would like to get to. So as we address this issue, I think it is important to understand that this country is a magnet. It is a magnet for people to come and fulfill their dreams, to make their lives better and their children's lives better. But if we are a country that cannot have an orderly and effective process of legal immigration, we are going to lose the support of the American people. If individuals continue to learn that those who come the right way, the legal way, have to stand in line for 10, 12, 15, 20 years, hoping to win the lottery, hoping to be one of those select people who are chosen, we will continue to see more and more illegal immigration. That is why it is important to address this issue and to make the necessary reforms. As I said earlier, it is an indisputable fact that our current immigration system has failed. It has failed the citizens of this country and it has failed those who have been standing in line for years trying to become eligible for immigration through the legal process. Today we have 11 million undocumented individuals living in our country. Approximately 40 percent of those who are here illegally arrive legally, on a legal basis for a temporary time. But once having come to our shores, they have overstayed their visas, absorbed themselves into our country and have not returned to their country. That is an issue. That is a problem, and we need to address that. We need to have a certified system in place that works--not promises, not words on pieces of paper--but a system that has the credibility to work, that when we grant people temporary status to come here to study, come here to visit, come here to see relatives, come here for whatever reason on a temporary basis, we know who comes in and we know who goes out and we know those who stay and we take appropriate action. That is simply a logical, legal way of having a system the American people can trust and believe in. One of the major issues here is our southern border and securing that border. I had the opportunity to spend a few days on the border from the Pacific Ocean in southern California and all the way across the Arizona border. So I had a pretty good look at this. As ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I wanted to find out how we were spending our money, what kind of success we were having, what problems we faced, and how we should better address our resources. It was instructive, and I urge my colleagues to take the opportunity to do the same. As a result of that, despite efforts to make that border secure, ``secure'' is not the right word to define where we are now. So one of the issues before us is: What do we do to make our borders more secure in a way that can convince the American people and the people we represent that this time--this time--we have in place a process which will result in a secured border? We went through this in 1986. Ronald Reagan proposed immigration reform. I voted for it. At the time, we had 3 million illegal immigrants. The promise in that legislation was that we would secure the border, and we would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Obviously, we did not. Today we have 11 million and perhaps counting. It is appropriate to say that the border is more secure than it was then. We have, over the years, and particularly in later years with a surge of illegal immigrants coming into our country, taken significant steps: increased border patrol agents, introduced sophisticated technology--a whole range of things that we have invested--money, resources, and manpower to make that border more secure. But we cannot truthfully come down here today and say the border is secure. We can say: We are going to make it secure and here is how we are going to do it. But I think we need something that is credible because the American people will simply say: How do we know you are not going to be here 5 years from now, 10 years from now, saying: I know we told you it was going to be secure and I know we still have a significant problem, but we will get it better next time. We do not want to repeat that mistake. If that happens again, I think it will be a long time before we are able to come down with a sensible reform proposal. Clearly, there is more work to do there, and it is going to be difficult for me to support a bill that does not put in place something that is credible relative to our ability to strengthen our border security. We cannot ignore this problem. We cannot ignore the fact that people continue to stay in our country illegally or cross our borders illegally. The status quo is not working. It encourages illegal immigrants to come across the border, which is why we need this debate, why we need reforms to our current broken system, and why we need to assure the American people we are going to work to repair this broken system. It is critical for our economic growth, it is critical for securing our borders, and it is critical for strengthening our national security. That is why I supported the motion to proceed to this debate on this important issue. Immigration reform needs to take place in an open, fair, and thorough debate, with the input of the American people, and I am certainly hearing from many of them in my State. I do have to say, I have serious concerns with the current text of the legislation that has come out of the Judiciary Committee, and I believe this bill needs to be improved before I could support it. I am particularly concerned and focused on improving the border security measures, making sure, as I said, we do not make the same mistakes we made in 1986. We must take steps now to secure it before we consider granting legal status to illegal immigrants. Additionally, I wish to work with my colleagues to improve the employer verification program, which I think is essential to dealing with the problem, and also our exit system measures, which I just discussed before about the people who come legally for a temporary stay but then we do not know if they go back home. I hope over the days ahead that we can live up to our reputation of being the most deliberative body in the world. People say: Why don't you get more things done? There is either one of two answers to that. One is, we do not bring bills to the floor and offer the opportunity to debate in an open way. But the second is that this is exactly what we need to do. On an issue of this importance, we clearly need this, and I am pleased that process is going to go forward. But let's not rush to a decision. Let's do it right. Let's not stand and declare that every amendment, if it does not fit with what the current bill before us addresses, then it is a poison pill that is simply being offered because Members do not want anything to pass. I do not fall in that category. I do not think we should have poison pills either. But a lot of these amendments I think go to addressing the problem we face as well as the inadequacies of the bill before us. There are a lot of sections in the bill that need fixing and a lot of amendments that will be offered are genuine and aim to make the bill better. A lot of those are offered by people who would like to get credible, workable, necessary immigration reform legislation passed. But if the sponsors of the bill or the supporters of the current text of the bill are simply going to declare that every amendment is a poison pill and that the only intent of the Members offering the amendment is to kill the bill, that is not constructive and that is not how we should go forward. So let's make sure what we do delivers on the promises we are making to secure our borders first, to deal with employer verification, improve the existing exit system, and to provide important provisions to ensure we have a legal immigration system that can benefit our country and continue the great story of America. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation. I would like to see legitimate, real, effective border control, and a number of other features, but I would like to get our system reformed because the current system is not working. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and couldn't agree with him more on a number of the things he listed; in particular, the so-called affordable care act, which is anything but affordable. I found out, as I traveled across the State of Indiana and spoke with Hoosiers, that this law is having an enormous negative impact on the decisions of employers, on health care providers, and on average citizens relative to what is coming down the line within the next several months and into 2014. This legislation is a colossal mistake. It is a mess. It is distorting the economy, it is keeping people out of work, and it is keeping employers from hiring new workers. People are trying to manipulate the system now because what is being imposed on them is so Draconian and unsustainable and unaffordable. That is why we need to officially call this ``unaffordable comprehensive health care reform'' rather than the Affordable Care Act. It is unaffordable. But that is not why I came here today. I came here today to talk about our current fiscal crisis. That has sort of taken a back seat to the debates we have been having on the Senate floor, even though they are necessary--immigration, which is coming up, the farm bill that we are currently dealing with, gun issues, and others. The looming dark cloud, the big bear in the closet, is our fiscal crisis, and it is not going away. Last Friday, the Social Security and Medicare trustees issued their annual report on the long-term financial status of the health and retirement security programs, and there was a little bit of good news; that is, the current numbers that exist out there and the rate of spending down on these programs has slowed somewhat. But it is not the kind of news we ought to celebrate. Some are saying: Oh, well, this takes the pressure off. Now we don't need to do anything about the structural reform of our mandatory spending for our entitlement programs because, look, we just had a good report. Let's just get back to regular business and we will worry about this later. Well, the fact remains our mandatory spending is not only unsustainable, it is having an immediate impact and will continue to have an even greater impact on other essential functions of government as the cost of funding for the mandatory systems continues to rise--and rise dramatically in future years with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. Let me repeat that: 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age each day, adding to the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We have known this was coming for years. We have known it was coming for decades; that an amazing number of people born post-World War II now have worked their way to the point of retirement. This has had an impact on our economy, whether they were babies needing more cribs and diapers, whether they were young children going to elementary school and we needed more schools, going to secondary colleges and universities and we needed to expand those, working their way through the economy, having children--a dramatic impact with this bulge of baby boom babies growing up and working their way through the system. Yet while we knew all this was coming, Congress and the administration repeatedly said: We will deal with this later. It is a crisis, we know, but it is just too tough to deal with now. What I am afraid of is that this latest report which came out and provided a little bit of relief, a little bit of wiggle room, but it did nothing to solve the long-term problem. What I am concerned about is that this report may be used to basically say we don't have to do anything now. What is the impact? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported earlier this year that spending on mandatory programs and interest on the debt--because we have to borrow to cover this cost-- will consume 91 percent of all Federal revenues 10 years from now. Already it is putting the squeeze on discretionary spending because what this means is that all other spending priorities are being squeezed out by spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and some of the other mandatory programs. If we are interested in a strong national defense, in a solid education system, infrastructure and bridges and paving roads, medical research, food and drug safety, homeland security, border security--and other programs, these programs are getting squeezed every day in terms of the amount of resources available. Why these groups don't form a coalition and come marching through the Halls of Congress and demand that we take action now on runaway mandatory spending, because it is simply wiping out their programs, is beyond me. But it is the nature of the political beast to postpone the tough stuff, to not have to get to the point where they have to tell anybody no because we want everybody to love us so they will vote for us in the next election. It is incomprehensible that we continue to put this off day after day, month after month, year after year, election after election. I have been around a while. How many times have we heard people say we will do that after the next election? That was the mantra in the 2012 Presidential election. Well, no. You see, the President couldn't step up and do this and the ruling party couldn't step up and do this because we had a Presidential election. They said that as soon as the election takes place, then we will have a period of time where we have been reelected to office or we have new Members coming in and we will not have the pressure of an election before us and we will address this problem. Here we are now into the sixth month of this year, when everyone knows that the first 100 days of the new administration--or a second- term in this case--is the best time to enact long-term good legislation that addresses major problems--the days are slip-sliding away. The days are counting, and we continue debate and talk about and interject issues here that, yes, have importance but don't begin to rise to the level of importance of the need to address our fiscal situation. The other thing I don't understand is why the young people of this country aren't standing up and demanding that we take action, because we are taking money away from them. We are diminishing their future. We are leaving them with a debt burden they may not be able to pay. The International Monetary Fund put out a report recently that to cover current obligations for young people, they--not us--will have to pay either 35 percent more in taxes to keep these mandatory funds alive and solvent or receive 35 percent fewer benefits. This is at a time when our Nation's youth already face an unemployment crisis. It is unconscionable. It is immoral for us to defer and to delay and to simply say we can't take care of these issues now and then move on through our lives, reap the benefits that come from some of these programs, and then hand it over to our children and say: Good luck. You are either going to pay one-third more in taxes or you are going to get one-third less in benefits, lifetime savings, Social Security for your retirement, health care coverage for your later years. Good luck with that one. But we couldn't summon the will to do it. We couldn't bring ourselves to make the hard choices. Are we going to step up to the plate and be responsible? What is our legacy going to be for those of us who are serving now? What are we going to tell our children and grandchildren? Will we say sorry, we just weren't able to do it? It was just too tough politically, we are worried about the folks back home that they might not take it the right way. It requires a little bit of sacrifice to reform these programs-- actually, to save the programs--before they go broke. But, no, we just couldn't do it. The President? No; kind of AWOL on this, hasn't stepped up. We thought for sure that after reelection, not being elected again, we would get some kind of leadership. I see it slip-sliding away, and now we are faced with that ultimate day of crisis when it hits and we have to make painful choices because we have no other choice. So why don't we take the rational approach? Why don't we have leadership that steps up and basically says this is what we need to do? Why don't we put the future of America and the future of our children and grandchildren and succeeding generations ahead of our own political interests? It is selfish not to do so. I think it is unconscionable. I think it is immoral for us to continue doing this. So I am going to continue to come to the floor as much as I can--I have been doing this all year--and I am going to continue to urge the President to work with us. I am not making this a partisan issue. We are working with people across the aisle who understand this and want to do something about it. But we know we can't get it done without the President taking leadership and standing up and working with us. There is a little bit going on right now, but here we are, 6 months later, and we are not making the progress we need to make. In the end, maybe we will pass another patch of legislation--a little patch here, a little patch there--and we will deal with the big thing later. We just can't do it now. For the sake of the future of this country, for the sake of the future of our children and grandchildren, for living up to our sworn oath to do what is necessary to continue the great story of democracy in this Nation, we need to step up and do this. These reforms are necessary. We all know it. We know the numbers. We know they are unsustainable. We know we must address it. I urge my colleagues to do whatever is necessary to make the tough choices. Interestingly enough, that legacy, if we stand up to do it, will be worth whatever results or consequences come from our making these decisions. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Carolina for bringing this forward. We have implemented now another set of sanctions. There is still some question as to whether sanctions will succeed and bring about the result we want, but I particularly commend my colleague for his statement just a few moments ago relative to the commitment of the United States toward the security, safety and preservation of Israel in light of this threat that exists in Iran. For years and years the clock has been ticking as the Iranians pursue nuclear weapons capability. We know that for a fact. We need to exert every possible measure that we can to give them reason not to go forward and do this. That involves everything from diplomacy to pressure through multinational organizations, through sanctions and ever-tightening, ever-ratcheting sanctions against them, but also the commitment to use whatever force may be necessary. I, along with my colleague, pray this does not happen. But Iran absolutely has to know that the United States will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the nation of Israel. If they level their gun sights at Israel, they are going to see us in the scope, standing shoulder to shoulder. We are committed to that. We are committed to doing everything we possibly can to prohibit and prevent Iran from achieving this nuclear capability. We will take whatever steps are necessary if they use it--if they gain that and use it for inappropriate purposes or any purposes other than production of medical devices and products as well as providing nuclear power. I trust also that we have a 100-percent vote on this so we send a very strong signal to the Iranians that we will not tolerate them going forward with this plan. I thank the Senator for yielding time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is extend our sincere regrets over the tragedy which occurred in Oklahoma. Sincere thoughts and prayers are coming from many Hoosiers for those people who have suffered greatly. Last year we had a serious tornado roar through southern Indiana along a 50-mile path. Fortunately, we didn't have the level of destruction they had in Oklahoma City. But having been there and viewed the destruction of that tornado in Indiana and the impact it had on the lives of so many people and then comparing it with what happened in Oklahoma, it certainly brings home the nature of this tragedy. Whenever Mother Nature's vicious wrath strikes, it not only tears apart homes but families. During these times of tragedy--such as what I witnessed in southern Indiana and what we are witnessing on television as we watch what is happening in Oklahoma--we see the extraordinary heroism, generosity, volunteerism, and resolve of the American people to pitch in and help. I ask all Hoosiers to keep our friends in Oklahoma in their hearts and prayers and to help wherever we can. Jobs and Debt Mr. President, in the last few weeks there has been scandal after scandal unfolding in Washington. Obviously this is a difficult period for the current administration, but more importantly, it has resulted in a difficult time for our Nation. What we saw last week is further justification for the American people's deeply disturbing distrust of government. Under this current administration, there has been a pattern of misleading the American people and there has been a culture of intimidation toward those who disagree with their policies. We saw it when the administration misled the American people with the events in Benghazi, and we saw it when the administration avoided letting people know about the IRS targeting conservative groups. Whether it is the IRS, Benghazi, or other issues we have become aware of in the last few weeks and months, they call into question the integrity of this administration. The American people deserve straight talk and the truth as to what happened rather than the mischaracterization or lack of revelation of what has happened. Through calls, emails, and letters, I am hearing from concerned Hoosiers who are outraged with what they see taking place in Washington. Given the headlines they have seen in the last few weeks, they have every right to be concerned. The only way to eliminate this current trust deficit in Washington is to hold people accountable, get complete answers, and make changes to ensure this abuse of power and misinformation which is coming out of this administration will not continue. We need to continue with these ongoing investigations until we get answers and determine who is responsible. In the midst of these investigations, let me state there is another scandal we must not overlook, and that is the ongoing chronic debt and unemployment crisis. Four-and-a-half years after the end of an admittedly deep recession, the fact that 22 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed is a scandal. More than $16.8 trillion of debt, with its impact on future generations, is a scandal. Borrowing $40,000 per second and saddling each child born today in America with over $50,000 of debt is a scandal. These numbers are not partisan or political, they are the facts. Those are the facts that this body, as well as this administration, have to deal with because we are careening on an unstable fiscal path which will bankrupt the critical programs our seniors and retirees depend on and rob them of the benefits they have been promised. We are seeing meager gains in jobs only to find out more and more Americans are being forced from full-time employment to part-time employment. In April alone, nearly 280,000 Americans involuntarily entered into part-time employment. At the same time, the average work week and weekly take-home pay continues to decline. These two issues--our debt crisis and our jobs crisis--should consume the work of this Congress and this administration. Instead, we careen from drama to drama. We wait for the fiscal cliff and debt limit deadlines, and then we enact far short from what we need to do with legislation that is often flawed, such as the across-the-board sequestration policy. None of this remotely solves the problem we face. In a recent Gallup poll, when asked what they would like Congress and the President to address, 86 percent of the American people named creating jobs and growing the economy. From Fort Wayne to Evansville and from Gary to Jeffersonville, Hoosiers tell me they want Congress to bring growth and certainty to our economy and create meaningful jobs for the underemployed and unemployed. As we address the issues before us, let's not forget about this major debt crisis which faces our country and impacts every American. Let's not forget about those Americans who are looking for work and cannot find it, or those who have been forced into part-time jobs which will not begin to be enough to support a family. Let's not become distracted and drop the ball on tackling these issues because the daily headlines are simply pointing to something else. The best way we can restore the trust deficit in this country is to do our job here, make the tough decisions we know we need to make, and address our greatest challenge. We must come together on a credible, long-term plan to reduce our debt and put our country back on a path toward growth and job creation. The future of our country depends upon it. Each of us, starting with the President, has a moral obligation to address this most critical issue. I hope we will be willing to stand up and do this. Yes, we have other issues. We have the farm bill, which we need to address. We will be talking about immigration a week after we come back from the break. We will be holding investigations and looking into some of these scandals that have surfaced over the last few weeks, but we still have not focused on the real problem here. While we have to do these other tasks, let us not forget what the real challenge is before us: restoring economic growth and creating jobs. We owe it to the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the sugar reform amendment being offered on the farm bill by Senator Shaheen. This important amendment would begin a reform process that deals with a complicated and burdensome program that artificially raises sugar prices in the United States. For nearly three-quarters of a century now, American businesses and consumers have paid a premium price for sugar. This inflated price is due to a tangled web of price manipulation, stringent import quotas and tariffs. The net effect has been that Americans are paying as much as twice the world market base price for sugar. We all realize the amount of sugar that is used in a number of products across the United States, but let me bring this down specifically to what impact it has on some of the confectioners in my home State. Albanese Confectionary Group, Inc, is a renowned Indiana- based manufacturer of a number of products that use a lot of sugars, including chocolates and Gummi bears--they call it the World's Best Gummies--and a lot of other confections. Their estimate is that they would save $3 trillion annually if they were able to buy sugar at the world price. Lewis Bakeries, headquartered in Evansville, IN, is one of the few remaining independent bakeries in our State and in the Midwest and is the largest wholesale bakery we have. Artificially high prices for Lewis Bakeries contributes directly to higher food and beverage costs that weigh down family budgets. Even larger companies such as Kraft Foods, which has a marshmallow and caramel plant in Kendallville, IN, knows that phasing out the Sugar Program would enhance the competitiveness of U.S. sugar manufacturers. Why is that important? Because these sugar prices for those in this business of using large quantities of sugar is driving them offshore. They are moving to Canada, they are moving to Mexico, they are moving to other places where they then can buy the most important ingredient for their product at world market prices and save a great deal of money. I encourage my colleagues to support the Shaheen amendment. It promotes jobs, fights consumer price inflation. It reduces the level of government interference in private markets. I think we should be pursuing policies that allow the free market to determine the cost of sugar rather than this complicated web of tariffs and regulations and others that protect that price. This amendment does not accomplish all of that, but it goes a long way toward beginning the process of unwinding this and making our companies more competitive around the world. I would like to take a moment to address another issue with the farm bill. Senator Donnelly and I are cosponsors of a bill called planting flexibility. We are hoping this provision we have offered will be included in the managers' amendment. I appreciate all the work that has been done behind the scenes to address this important issue. Planting flexibility simply allows farmers to respond to market signals when making their planting decisions, rather than following requirements to grow a particular crop to participate in government programs. For example, Hoosier tomato farmers were restricted on where they could plant their crop. Red Gold, a family-owned and operated tomato business in Elwood, IN, estimates that roughly 50 percent of its tomatoes are now grown on flexible acres. Red Gold produces a whole number of tomato products that are sold all over the United States and, in fact, all over the world. Allowing this flexibility, again, is a free-market-based choice which producers can follow based on supply and demand. It gives them the flexibility they need to address crops outside the coverage of this particular bill. I think both of these measures are commonsense, market-driven reforms that I hope will be included in the farm bill, and I ask that my colleagues support them. Mr. President, unless the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee needs the time, and since no one else is on the floor, I would be remiss in not speaking a little longer. If I could speak as if in morning business, I wish to do so.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, may I inquire as to how much time I am allowed on morning business?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, Thomas Jefferson once said: The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society. The foundation of this society, this great society based on democracy, is the principle of self-determination and the belief that every American is equal under the law and guaranteed liberty. This principle is ingrained in the character of our Nation, and it is enshrined in our Constitution. Of the many things that set us apart from other nations, there is none greater than the First Amendment to the Constitution--the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and to petition our government, and the freedom of speech. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to organize around the issues and values they believe in, and they have the right to disagree with their government. This liberty is part of what energizes our democracy, and it is essential if this democracy is to prevail. That freedom has come under attack recently by our very own government when the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, including at least one in my home State of Indiana, for extra scrutiny based on their political leanings. The IRS must be nonpartisan. It has to be. It is not a partisan watchdog. Why did the enforcers of our Tax Code target groups with applications that included the words ``tea party,'' ``patriots,'' or ``9/12 Project''? Why did it single out applications of groups focusing on issues such as government spending, government debt and taxes, to educate the public by advocacy to ``make America a better place to live,'' or those who sought to educate Americans about our Constitution? The IRS singled out a group formed to better educate Americans about our Constitution. What, are they afraid they are going to read it? The IRS targeted a group that wants to make America a better place to live. They are afraid that these groups are going to succeed by questioning the policies of this administration and perhaps suggesting a different course. This is outrageous, this targeting. The inspector general issued a report yesterday saying these are very serious allegations, and they reveal an effort to misuse government power to unfairly scrutinize those who simply disagree with the policies of this administration. Remember the timing. All of this took place during a national election. I have met with tea party groups all across the State of Indiana. Unlike the characterization that is made by some, these are honest, law-abiding citizens who are deeply concerned about the future of their country. They are deeply concerned about our nation's plunge into deficit spending and debt that may never be able to be repaid and may be dumped in the laps of our children and our grandchildren. They want to do something about it, and they are deeply concerned about abuses of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. They said one of the first things they do is suggest why don't we read the Constitution and better understand the Constitution. I think that is a good idea, because I think some of the things we are doing raise the question of whether they are constitutional. To form a group for the purpose of addressing concerns about the national debt, which is running out of control, about a government that is spending like a drunken sailor, about a government that refuses to do what just about every business in America and every family in America has had to do during this time of downturn and recession--that is to tighten their belts and spend more wisely--only the Federal Government doesn't do this and hasn't done this successfully. So they get targeted by an agency that oversees their taxes and intimidates them or fails to give a rational evaluation of their application for tax exempt status? This targeting is not only inappropriate, it is outrageous and it is disgraceful. It is a despicable abuse of power and a direct assault on our Constitution. It is exactly the type of thing that makes Americans further distrust their government. Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center released a poll revealing that 73 percent of Americans distrust their government. In other words, only 3 out of every 10 Americans have faith in the Federal Government. This trust deficit is something we should not ignore. It is an alarming indication of how the American people view their government--one that continues to overreach. Those of us who are trying to assure our constituents that we are doing everything we can to keep this government from overreaching, who know we need to restore this trust, we are now hit with something like this. The IRS is given the responsibility of carrying out the law. It should never use its powers for partisan purposes--ever. Violating that standard destroys the integrity of our government and further erodes the trust of the American people. Neither those of us who make the laws nor those who enforce the laws can be above the law, but the IRS believed it was above the law when it targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. Make no mistake, it is the IRS that will be under scrutiny because of their own abuse, and so will every other agency of government because we are beginning to discover a disturbing pattern of politically motivated abuse. Sometimes I think we are beginning to hear the echoes of Watergate whispering through this town and through the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I have a hard time believing their apology and explanation that this was simply a misguided effort by low-level bureaucrats attempting to organize applications for tax exempt status. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yes, Benghazi--these were some low-level bureaucrats who made the wrong decision. Where does the buck stop in this town? It doesn't stop at the President's desk or at the desk of the Secretary of State. It seems to be pushed down to the ``low-level bureaucrats'' who should have been supervised better. These people went off and did their own thing so let's just dismiss it, push it to the side. So, yes, we lost an ambassador--that was a tragic situation--and three others who were there trying to protect him, but what is the big deal? It is over with. It was a mistake, so let's move on. It is just like this pathetically weak statement from our President who said if this turns out to be the case, then, of course, we will need to do something about it. It is real. It is there. It has to be addressed. While an apology from the IRS is necessary, it is not enough to just simply say it is an inappropriate act. The targeting of these groups, which was confirmed by, as I said, the inspector general, is a very serious allegation and reveals an effort to misuse government power to unfairly scrutinize those who disagree with the administration. The actions of the IRS to target groups based on political viewpoints is outrageous and disgraceful. It is an abuse of power and a direct assault on our Constitution. Madam President, there must be accountability and responsibility from top leadership, and that includes the White House. The American people deserve answers. How could this clearly unconstitutional action have occurred? Who was involved and who else was aware of this deliberate targeting? What steps will be taken to ensure this doesn't happen again? Today, I have joined all of my Senate Republican colleagues in sending the President a letter demanding the administration comply fully with all congressional inquiries on this matter. No more avoiding, no more delaying, no more stonewalling, no more inappropriate responses. It is time for the administration to start answering some questions for the American people. This scandal has left a stain on the IRS that I believe cannot be repaired under current leadership. The head of the IRS, as well as every supervisor involved, should be removed from their posts. We will not tolerate the intimidation and silencing of Americans simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. Let me conclude by repeating Thomas Jefferson's warning: We must not allow this abuse of fundamental constitutional rights to break up the very foundations of society. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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