Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I just returned from a week back home in Indiana where I had the opportunity to meet with Hoosiers from all parts of our State and on all kinds of different issues. One of the common themes that came out of my week back home was the sentiment that we just are not growing as fast as we need to as a nation in order to get people back to work. We held a job fair in Lafayette, IN. About 2,200 people showed up at this job fair looking for work opportunities. While many walked away with job offers in hand, clearly there are not enough viable opportunities out there to get the people back to work who really want to get back to work. As I talked to businesspeople across the State, particularly with small business owners, there was a common theme that came forward: they are very reluctant to hire. It is not that their businesses aren't improving. We have seen some significant improvement, particularly in Indiana, with some drop in the unemployment rate. But they say it is not specifically that they don't have the work, it is that they are afraid to hire. They are afraid to hire new people because there is so much uncertainty about what their taxes are going to be, what new regulations are going to come forward, what new items are going to be imposed upon them by the regulatory authorities in Washington, DC, and by the health care reform bill which puts some new mandate on them. To hire new employees, they say, we have to factor in all of these various uncertainties in terms of our ability to continue this business on a profitable basis. So whether it is talking to farmers in southern Indiana who are upset about the various proposed regulations affecting their businesses or whether it is manufacturers in northwest Indiana or to small business people across the State, I am hearing this repetitive response--that Washington is trying to impose too much, and there is too much uncertainty about their ability to deal with the future and make decisions about hiring. One of the latest things we have been hearing is that the EPA is imposing significant new regulations relative to the Clean Air Act on emissions that will affect Indiana utilities in a very significant way. Another thing our businesspeople mentioned is they don't know what their utility rates are going to be in the future because of these new regulations coming out, and the utilities are basically telling them they are going to have to pay more in the future because of these new regulations. I stand here as someone who voted for the Clean Air Act and supports the Clean Air Act. We are all for clean air. However, there are those of us who are trying to propose reasonable ways of achieving that goal without negatively impacting our ability to hire people and the ability of consumers to pay their utility bills and the ability of corporations and businesses to have reasonable rates so they can compete worldwide in producing products. They are not asking for a return to dirty skies. They are not asking for a return to dirty water. They are citizens of the United States. They breathe the same air we all breathe. What they are saying, however, is that they need a solution to the problem handled in a responsible, reasonable way, and an affordable way that gives them time to implement these regulations. There has been a lot of talk recently about two items the EPA has been imposing on the power industry, and after visiting with Indiana utilities it is clear the EPA timeline will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. So, again, while we all want to support clean air, doing so in a way that also keeps our people at work and keeps our utility rates at a reasonable level is not being considered by the EPA. I joined with a Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, to bring forward legislation that meets the standards and meets the goals but does so in a way that gives those power-producing utilities the opportunity and time and cost opportunity to be able to accomplish that. All we have done is just extend, in the case of one of the regulations, for 2 years, and in the case of another, for 3 years to give those utilities time to comply because the immediate compliance requirements of the EPA on these utilities means they are going to have to shut down the plants. Some of them are in retrofit as we speak; however, that retrofit may not meet the EPA deadline. Therefore, they are asking for the right to get a waiver for an extension. That is what Manchin-Coats--Coats- Manchin--does. It provides a reasonable way of achieving the goals of clean air, but doing so in a way that doesn't have a devastating impact on our States as these regulations would do. One is the CSAPR Rule, which deals with sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions, and the other is called Utility MACT, which reduces mercury emissions. In particular, there is a movement underway now to remove mercury from these emissions. But if we don't do it in a responsible way, the consequences of the EPA regulations coming down hard mean closing up to six powerplants in Indiana and a skyrocketing of utility rates. There is a particular impact on small business. Small business, as we know, provides most of the hiring and those small businesspeople don't have the backroom support to comply with all the written and required regulations that are being imposed on them. I have talked to so many people who have said instead of being out on the showroom floor, being out front at the counter, they have to be back half the time in their business complying with regulations. A hospital administrator told me of the 12,000 people under their employ, 6,000 provide care and 6,000 fill out paperwork for compliance with regulations, compliance with reimbursement, administrative costs, many of which are imposed by legislation or regulation, in most cases, that comes out of Washington. So as we look at opportunities in the Senate to responsibly address some of these issues, in this business it is always tempting to politicize the process so that if someone doesn't immediately step up and salute the latest EPA regulation, we are harming people here or denying people there; that there are safety concerns, and we are risking harm to people and so forth. All we are asking for is a reasonable way to go forward to meet reasonable health and safety standards. What we are saying is that the surge of regulations that is pouring out of Washington upon our people and upon our businesses within the last 2 or 3 years is staggering, and it is clearly holding down growth. It is clearly holding down economic recovery. It is clearly holding down the ability of businesses to hire and put more people back to work. So whether it is the Inhofe resolution of disapproval, which I strongly support, or any of a number of other proposals, I am going to support those. The blank check that has been given to regulatory agencies, because it is not possible for this administration to pass it through Congress as they did in 2009 and 2010 with a total majority no longer exists. Therefore, the regulatory agencies appear to have been given a blank check, and they have just run amok with regulations. So as we look at these regulations, let's take a reasonable look in terms of what we need to accomplish and in terms of providing for the health and safety of our people and what the consequences are of trying to do it in a way that jeopardizes our economic recovery and getting people back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. I believe we are going to have a cloture vote on this bill tonight, and I am pleased that all early indications are it will pass tonight and we will move forward on this bill. There has been considerable time spent drafting this legislation. It gained bipartisan support both in House and Senate committees, and it is moving through what I would call a regular process. We haven't seen too much of that in the last year and a half or so. This is the regular process. For those who say Congress can't get anything done, hopefully, with passage of this bill we will take a very significant step forward in terms of being able to provide and bring to patients, doctors, administrators, and others across the Nation new drugs, new treatments, and new medical devices that can ensure better health, prevent potential terminal situations, and provide better drug availability and device availability. So I think it is very important that this legislation goes forward. I am pleased we have gotten to this point on a bipartisan basis. I think Senators Harkin and Enzi deserve commendation for their work in the Senate, and those in the House as well for bringing the bill along on a parallel track. The whole idea of this legislation is to continue to provide the safest, most effective and most efficient drugs and devices for American citizens and people around the world. These are two very important industries in which the United States has had the leading edge as providers and we don't want to lose that. It has meant a lot for our economy, and it has meant a lot of jobs for Americans. I think the passage of this bill will continue what has been a remarkable nearly three decades' worth of innovation that has taken place both in the biopharmaceutical industry as well as the medical device industry. Part of this bill deals with drug shortages. I have talked to a number of doctors--my staff has been traveling the State talking to medical providers--and there is an alarming number of drug shortages in critical drugs, particularly those designed to deal with more rare instances of health problems and yet, obviously, important to those people who are suffering from those incidences of disease or health threats. It was reported to me that last year FDA received a record number of drug shortage reports--more than 250--including critical drugs used in surgery, emergency care, and oncology. The problem continues today, but the this bill addresses that and, hopefully, will move us forward significantly in terms of dealing with this current problem. In Fort Wayne--my hometown in Indiana--Parkview Health's pharmacy director said nearly 80 percent of hospitals consistently face shortages in drugs needed for emergencies, including cardiac and diabetic prescriptions. This bill incorporates significant reporting requirements to the FDA that I hope will help mitigate this critical problem. I think we are going to need to figure out ways to further address this, but this can be an important first step. The whole concept has been somewhat unique in the Federal Government; that is, the makers of the products essentially pay a fee to a regulatory agency for the regulatory agency to conduct the work necessary to gain approval to sell their drugs on the market. We have had a situation which is sort of a cornucopia of new innovations in drugs and medical devices. Yet they have been delayed by the bureaucracy or the inability of the FDA to move in an efficient, effective way to run this through the process. The biopharmaceutical industry has basically said: Look, we are willing to put up between $3.5 billion and $4 billion in new user fees--I believe it is over a 5-year period of time--which will account for nearly 60 percent of the funding designated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. In exchange for putting up those fees, the FDA has agreed to new performance goals and process improvements that will reduce the time it takes drugs to reach the market. So the key is to provide the funds necessary to hire the right people and put the right procedures in place to expedite the study and approval of safe, effective, efficient drugs that have been sent to the FDA for approval so we can get them into the market. Of course, the ultimate goal is to get them not only into the market but use them to provide health and safety benefits for the American people. The Medical Device User Fee Act is also part of this. In Indiana, we have not only a very large biopharmaceutical company and a number of affiliated companies, we also have a vibrant and dynamic medical device industry. That industry employs over 20,000 Hoosiers directly and many more indirectly with good-paying jobs. Many of these companies are right on the leading edge of new innovation and new developments. So included in the legislation that we will be voting on is a 5-year agreement known as the Medical Device User Fee Act that improves the regulatory pathway for medical devices. This is the medical device equivalent of the pharmaceutical user fee. Device companies have worked with the FDA, again in an agreement where each side contributes. The medical device manufacturers will contribute user fees to go to the FDA that can be used to streamline--without compromising safety in any way--the regulatory process so the approvals can be made. Why is this important? Well, it is important not only to getting these products into the marketplace so they can be used to safely improve the health of American citizens, but this is a dynamic export industry where America has been the leading exporter of medical devices. I have heard from so many medical device manufacturers throughout Indiana that they are faced with the dilemma of having to potentially think about moving overseas simply because of the delays and the time lapse that exists for approval. They can manufacture these products overseas and get approval overseas and sell them on a worldwide basis much more quickly, but they do not want to do that. The United States is their home and they want to produce here, but they have to compete with their competitors across the waters that are subjected to fewer delays in implementing approvals. To counter that, we simply want to use this medical device user fee in a way that will help the FDA's review process and eliminate these unnecessary delays, unpredictability, and inconsistency of past practices. I do want to thank the FDA for paying significant attention to our device users by coming to Indiana and listening to them--a forum that I convened. There has been interaction back and forth, whether it is FDA traveling to Indiana or device manufacturers traveling here to Washington. I am pleased that this bill contains some items that are the result of all those negotiations and all those exchanges between the two. Let me mention one last thing before closing, and that is the medical device tax, which is not part of this bill. To pay for the so-called affordable health care law, the administration included a 2.3-percent tax on medical devices, which will begin in 2013. That tax essentially was imposed on an industry that is paying its full share of taxes, contributing to the user fee, and yet it was slapped on as a way to pay for the costly health care bill. That has an enormous impact over a period of time on these device manufacturers and jeopardizes manufacturers' ability to remain based here in the United States rather than looking overseas. There are a number of States in addition to Indiana--and my colleague from Minnesota is waiting to speak, and her State is also a major manufacturer and innovator of medical devices. California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin will all suffer potential job losses if this medical device tax is imposed. We are not taking it up in this bill so as not to try to derail the bill. I understand an agreement has been made that it would be set aside. I know Senator Hatch, on our side, is looking for an opportunity to bring that up in another vehicle, and I want to support that. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the impact of that fee on our ability as a nation to be the leader in innovation and export of medical devices. I thank Senators Harkin and Enzi for shepherding the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act through the committee. I believe this legislation will help improve patients' access to new medical technology, and it will protect American jobs and improve the FDA so that America can remain a global leader in biomedical innovation. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mike Gerson said in his column: Chuck led a movement of volunteers attempting to love some of their least lovable neighbors. This inversion of social priorities--putting the last first--is the best evidence of a faith that is more than a crutch, opiate, or self-help program. It is the hallmark of authentic religion--and it is the vast, humane contribution of Chuck Colson. Chuck Colson's remarkable life story can serve as a guiding light and provide all of us the courage and the strength to overcome whatever adversity we may face in our own lives. May we remember the example of Chuck Colson and the words prayed so often by my very good friend: Please show me how You want me to live and give me the power to live that way. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2012] Charles Colson Found Freedom in Prison (By Michael Gerson) Charles W. Colson--who spent seven months in prison for Watergate-era offenses and became one of the most influential social reformers of the 20th century--was the most thoroughly converted person I've ever known. Following Chuck's recent death, the news media--with short attention spans but long memories--have focused on the Watergate portion of his career. They preserve the image of a public figure at the moment when the public glare was harshest--a picture taken when the flash bulbs popped in 1974. But I first met Chuck more than a decade after he left the gates of Alabama's Maxwell prison. I was a job-seeking college senior, in whom Chuck detected some well-hidden potential as a research assistant. In him, I found my greatest example of the transforming power of grace. I had read many of the Watergate books, in which Chuck appears as a character with few virtues apart from loyalty. I knew a different man. The surface was recognizable--the Marine's intensity, the lawyer's restless intellect. The essence, however, had changed. He was a patient and generous mentor. And he was consumed--utterly consumed--by his calling to serve prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. Many wondered at Chuck's sudden conversion to Christianity. He seemed to wonder at it himself. He spent each day that followed, for nearly 40 years, dazzled by his own implausible redemption. It is the reason he never hedged or hesitated in describing his relationship with Jesus Christ. Chuck was possessed, not by some cause, but by someone. He stood in a long line of celebrated converts, beginning with the Apostle Paul on the Damascus road, and including figures such as John Newton, G.K. Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge. They were often received with skepticism, even contempt. Conversion is a form of confession--a public admission of sin, failure and weakness. It brings out the scoffers. This means little to the converted, who have experienced something more powerful than derision. In his poem, ``The Convert,'' Chesterton concludes: ``And all these things are less than dust to me/ Because my name is Lazarus and I live.'' Prison often figures large in conversion stories. Pride is the enemy of grace, and prison is the enemy of pride. ``How else but through a broken heart,'' wrote Oscar Wilde after leaving Reading Gaol, ``may Lord Christ enter in?'' It is the central paradox of Christianity that fulfillment starts in emptiness, that streams emerge in the desert, that freedom can be found in a prison cell. Chuck's swift journey from the White House to a penitentiary ended a life of accomplishment--only to begin a life of significance. The two are not always the same. The destruction of Chuck's career freed up his skills for a calling he would not have chosen, providing fulfillment beyond his ambitions. I often heard him quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and mean it: ``Bless you, prison, for having been in my life.'' Chuck was a powerful preacher, an influential cultural critic and a pioneer of the dialogue between evangelicals and Catholics. But he was always drawn back to the scene of his disgrace and his deliverance. The ministry he founded, Prison Fellowship, is the largest compassionate outreach to prisoners and their families in the world, with activities in more than 100 countries. It also plays a morally clarifying role. It is easier to serve the sympathetic. Prisoners call the bluff of our belief in human dignity. If everyone matters and counts, then criminals do as well. Chuck led a movement of volunteers attempting to love some of their least lovable neighbors. This inversion of social priorities--putting the last first--is the best evidence of a faith that is more than crutch, opiate or self-help program. It is the hallmark of authentic religion--and it is the vast, humane contribution of Chuck Colson. It is a strange feeling to lose a mentor--a sensation of being old and small and exposed outside his shade. Chuck's irrational confidence in my 21-year-old self felt a little like grace itself. The scale of his life--a broad arc from politics to prison to humanitarian achievement--is also the scale of his absence. But no one was better prepared for death. No one more confident in the resurrection--having experienced it once already. So my grief at Chuck's passing comes tempered--because he was Lazarus, and he lives.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to honor a longtime friend, confidant, and mentor, Chuck Colson, whose life we will celebrate tomorrow at a memorial service at the National Cathedral. It has been said that a man's character can be tested by the way he responds to adversity. If that is the case, Chuck Colson's character was one of remarkable strength, tenacity, faith, and humility. Chuck was a brilliant man with a resume of impressive accomplishments at a very young age: A scholarship to an Ivy League school and a law degree from George Washington University; a veteran and, at one time, the youngest captain in the Marine Corps; a former chief of staff to a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts; and then top assistant and legal counsel to the President of the United States. Now, this does not sound like the type of man who would find himself sitting alone in a Federal prison cell, but that is exactly what happened to Chuck Colson, and what happened there changed his life forever. Known as President Nixon's ``hatchet man,'' Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Daniel Ellsberg case during the Watergate scandal and went from White House Special Counsel to incarcerated felon. In 1974, Chuck Colson entered Maxwell Federal Prison Camp in Alabama. This fall from perhaps the closest confidant of the President of the United States to a Federal prison cell is about as far and as deep as anyone can fall. That is what we call hitting rock bottom. But rock bottom for Chuck Colson became a time of repentance, a time of grace, and a time of transformation. Far from the Rose Garden, it was behind those prison bars where Chuck Colson made one of the most important decisions of his life--one that would impact the lives of thousands. He decided to dedicate the rest of his life serving the God he loved. Scripture in Proverbs reads: Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. With a redemption that can only come through the grace of God, and with a renewed sense of vision, Chuck did just that. He put his trust in the Lord and submitted to Him. He decided to let God write the story of his life rather than trying to control his own destiny. That transformation is the story we will celebrate tomorrow at the National Cathedral--a story of redemption and a testament to the power of God's forgiveness and love. Chuck Colson's experience in prison and his renewed sense of vision opened his eyes to a sector of our society that is often forgotten. Once a prisoner himself--and having experienced the depth of his own need for repentance and transformation; even those at the very bottom of society--Chuck believed that God could change them and any willing heart. As described in the first two of his many published books--the first one, ``Born Again,'' and the second one, ``Life Sentence''--Chuck dedicated his now transformed life to serving prison inmates and the families of prisoners. In 1976, he practiced what he preached and founded Prison Fellowship, a Christian ministry to give prisoners the opportunity to experience the radically transforming power of Christ that he had experienced himself. Chuck Colson's ministry took him to visit 600 prisons in the United States and in 40 other countries. He worked relentlessly to improve prison conditions, increase access to religious programs, and provide resources and support to the families of prisoners. Prison ministry was not his only passion. In his later years, Chuck focused his efforts on developing other Christian leaders who could influence their communities through their faith. This became the cornerstone of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, a research and training center established to promote Christian worldview teaching. Chuck has touched the lives of many people through his ministry, books, lectures, and charity work. I am one of those who is personally grateful for the positive influence he has had on my life. It was in April 1976 that I attended an annual Fort Wayne, IN, mayor's prayer breakfast. I was intrigued with the speaker who was announced as Chuck Colson--recently released from prison, formerly a Watergate figure and legal counsel to the President. As I sat through his presentation, I was touched in a way and reached in a way that transformed my life, and I am ever grateful to Chuck Colson for using himself as, I think, a conduit for a message I also needed to receive. It resulted in a radical change of course for me: from a predictable, settled, purposeful, I thought, life as an attorney in a midsized firm in Fort Wayne, IN, to becoming engaged in politics, something I never thought I would engage in. It was Chuck Colson who made me ask that same question and make that same decision he made; that is, to no longer try to control the direction of my life, but subject myself to the control of someone who had a plan for me. And that plan was not a specific one of serving in the Senate or Congress. It was simply to be open to the possibility of a path that perhaps I had not ever thought would be taken. As a consequence of that, and as a consequence of a string of events that is impossible for me to claim any credit for, I find myself standing here in the Senate delivering this tribute to Chuck Colson. Marsha and I will miss him greatly. We will continue to be motivated and inspired by the example of how life should be lived. When I first came to the Senate, I was here just 2 days when I received a call from Chuck Colson. He said: I have a gift for you. It is a precious gift, and one I do not want to give, but I think this gift can be more useful to someone who can speak as a U.S. Senator than to someone like me who can speak as head of Prison Fellowship. That gift was a young man by the name of Michael Gerson, who had, after leaving college, worked for Prison Fellowship and, both through policy decisions and through the written word, helped Chuck with his ministry. This young man worked for me for a number of years, and I was the voice of his thinking and the voice of his written messages. He went on to become a speech writer for a Presidential candidate and then the chief speech writer for President George W. Bush. Michael Gerson wrote a piece that was published in the Washington Post on April 22 titled ``Charles Colson found freedom in prison.'' I think that piece certainly is worth reading. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. COATS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think there is merit in the discussion about whether we vote now or vote later. The important thing is that we vote on this budget point of order. It is not as if the entire process of trying to fix the post office is going to collapse if we take this vote and it succeeds. All we are asking is that we find a way to pay for it. This Senate agreed last August to the Budget Control Act; that we were not going to exceed these limits, and that we would find, if there was something essential that needed to be done--if that is the case to be made here--we would at least find a way to stay within what we agreed to do. This is the second time now, I believe--maybe more-- that we have violated that agreement. So what do we go home and tell our people? Well, this was so important--to save some post offices-- that we had to violate an agreement which was agreed to by a strong majority here to save the country from default. There are priorities. It is impossible for me to understand why we can't, in this government that spends over $3.7 trillion, find a way to scare up $34 billion over a 10-year period of time to cover the cost this bill is going to lay on us. So I would urge, whether we vote now or vote later on the point of order made by the Senator from Alabama, that we consider this. We have a recess week coming up. Staff can get together and dig out $34 billion in cost savings we can apply to this so we don't have to worry about going home and telling people we didn't keep our word, that we lied to them last August.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, right now there is an issue on the mind of every Hoosier and most Americans, if not every American, and that issue is the high price of gas. Over the past few months, gas prices have risen higher and higher each week. Currently, across the Nation, the average price is $3.90. In Indiana, it is even higher. It is close to $4, and in many parts of our State it is well over $4 per gallon. These prices obviously have a significant economic impact on our country. It causes budgets to get tighter, planned vacations to either be canceled or shortened; families, farmers, and businesses across the State of Indiana are having to rethink their budgets for the year and make tough financial decisions. This is all at a time when unemployment continues to remain high. Americans are struggling to make ends meet. Rising gas and energy costs only further weaken an already struggling economy. It is true supply and demand of gasoline and oil prices are subject to global considerations. There are concerns that the supply is not meeting the demand. That triggers some clear increase in prices of crude oil. There is also the concern that conflict in the Middle East could potentially shut down lanes of commerce that bring oil out of the Middle East to the rest of the world. So we need to acknowledge there are these spikes. However, this is a trend that has been going up and up and up. We have seen gas prices more than double in the last 3 years and, clearly, now $3.50, $3.75 is not something that looks like a spike; it is starting to look like the normal average and that certainly has real serious economic implications for this country. There is some good news. The good news is, Americans are increasingly understanding and learning we can be a major player in producing energy. We are discovering abundant amounts of energy in this country we didn't think we had. A lot of that is right in our backyard. That is the good news. The bad news is, we have had an administration that for 3 years has been promoting policies that work against the goal of achieving more energy independence. That is the problem with the bill we are currently discussing because that bill raises gasoline prices by raising taxes on oil production. Why in the world would we want to raise prices on gasoline at a time when America's economy is struggling to come out of recession? At a time when gasoline prices are rising through the supply-and-demand issues we have had, why in the world would we want to do anything that would further increase the cost of gas at the pump? The current Tax Code provides a number of targeted tax incentives for the energy sector. It is important to note the vast majority of those subsidies go to the so-called new wave of energy production, the renewables, and only a small minority of those subsidies and credits go to producing the oil and gas that drives this economy. So eliminating only those benefits that go to the production of needed oil and gas that benefits our economy while at the same time extending the subsidies and credits and support for renewables is not the direction we need to go. This is not about producing more energy; it is about targeting just one sector of our energy industry, which is oil--a fossil fuel energy source that is absolutely essential to our economy. If we want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies, we ought to put all subsidies for energy on the table. Senator Wyden and I have coauthored a comprehensive tax reform bill, and in that bill we look at the idea proposed and suggested not only by the Bowles-Simpson Commission but by others who have looked at this and who have said we need to get on a level playing field. We are willing to make adjustments even in our own bill, if it is necessary, so we can lower tax rates on American companies and on the American people by getting to a more level playing field. We have all heard the President say we are doing all of the above or we need to do all of the above in terms of an energy approach, and unblock American resources and put us back in the driver's seat of energy production. The reality is, the administration's policies over the last 3 years have been directed at only subsidizing a certain portion of the ``all of the above.'' Let me give a couple examples. President Obama has reduced the number of new offshore leases in half over the next 5 years. In terms of current exploration and production, 97 percent of offshore areas are out of bounds, cannot drill, cannot explore. Most recently, the President rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, a privately--privately, not publicly--funded project that would create 20,000 jobs and deliver more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. Then, just last week, the President says we are going to improve the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma down to Port Arthur, Texas but rejected doing anything to bring the pipeline from the source of the oil down to the point in Oklahoma where it would continue on. That is essentially akin to saying: We have goods we need to move. They are essential. They are essential to the running of this country and the economy and we need to ship those from Chicago to New Orleans, but we are only going to build the road from Little Rock to New Orleans, and we will not have any other way of transporting it to get it to that particular point. So it makes no sense whatsoever. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot tell the American people we support an ``all of the above'' energy plan and then undercut attempts to produce domestic energy sources. We cannot say we want to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and then block major parts of the Keystone Pipeline or tell political leaders in Brazil we want the United States to be one of their best customers. We cannot tell Americans we are focused on job creation and then impose one unrealistic regulation after another that increase energy costs, jeopardize jobs, and shut down plants across the country. But that is exactly what this administration is doing. The Obama energy plan is to pay lip service to American energy production at the same time while enacting policies that limit our ability to tap into domestic resources. Our country faces an energy crisis. We have high unemployment. We have troops putting themselves on the frontline to protect oil in the Middle East. But we can change that. We can unlock American energy resources. We can put Americans back to work in doing so. We can protect our troops and reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. We have the ability, we have the innovation, and we have now, we know, the resources to lead the world in energy production. It is time for the President to support American energy production. That is the real ``all of the above'' energy plan. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I sense I am approaching a deadline in time. I am wondering if I could, with the consent of my colleague, ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this past Friday marked the 2-year anniversary of when the president's health care law, the affordable care act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, was signed in to law. I wasn't in the Senate at the time; I was actually in the State of Indiana campaigning to be in the Senate as a representative of that State. As such, I had spent a considerable amount of time crisscrossing the State and talking to Hoosiers about the health care plan. From diners and restaurants all across Indiana to small businesses, large businesses, medium-size businesses, big industrial giants, small mom-and-pop operations, medical providers, and ordinary citizens, we in Indiana join the nearly two-thirds--or perhaps even more than two-thirds--of the country that oppose this law. Hoosiers didn't then, and they don't now, want to have a one-size- fits-all nationalized health care system. They want a healthier health care system. They want reforms to the current problems and excessive rising costs of health care. This is the first of many attempts I will make to discuss why we need to address this law, which is moving toward ever and ever greater implementation and particularly kicks in over the next two years. Hoosiers, as I said, did not want the plan then and they don't want it now. They don't want to have Federal bureaucrats making their health care decisions for them. They want less government intervention and higher quality of care, and they don't want a health care system that increases costs and premiums while hurting job creators with fines and penalties. They want affordable care and good job opportunities. Two years after passage of that act, I continue to hear these messages from the people of Indiana and from others as we discover more and more information about what is contained in this massive 2,700-page bill that was passed in early 2010. I wish to discuss a few of the impacts of the ObamaCare law today. The first is the individual mandate, and of course that is one of the issues the Supreme Court is hearing right now and will be making a determination on. ObamaCare is the biggest example of government intrusion in the everyday lives of Americans, whether by forcing individuals to buy health insurance, enacting onerous regulations on small businesses, or by raising taxes and imposing penalties. The health care law forces every American to purchase a health insurance plan or, if they choose not to do so, to pay the government a fine. This is unprecedented in American history. It is the first time the Federal Government is forcing citizens to purchase a product or a service they may or may not want or pay a fine for their decision to say no. This administration basically is saying to Americans: We know what is better for you than you know for yourself. We know what is better for you than what your doctor suggests is needed, and if you don't get a government-approved health care plan, we are going to assess you a fine. That is a basic, fundamental principle of constitutional law and the Supreme Court will be making that determination. But I suggest that this Congress needs to continue to debate this and be prepared to act depending on what the Supreme Court decision is, which will come down several months from now. The second thing I wish to talk about briefly is the higher costs that emanate from this particular piece of legislation. In addition to mandating that all Americans have health insurance, ObamaCare hits individuals and families with increased costs at higher premiums. The Nation's nonpartisan budget experts at the Congressional Budget Office estimate that when fully implemented, this law will increase insurance premiums on a family policy by an average of $2,100 a year. Therefore, the affordable care act is hardly affordable and increases the already high premiums people have to pay for insurance. The President's own Chief Actuary at the Center for Medicare Services reported that the law will increase national health care costs by $311 billion in the first 10 years alone--increase is the key word here. The goal of reforming the Nation's health care system initially was to reduce the skyrocketing costs for Americans, not increase them. Yet, we are now being told by the experts and the President's own people that Obamacare will increase costs. I also wish to speak about the impact of this law on businesses. I talked to dozens if not hundreds of businesses across the State of Indiana, both in the campaign year of 2010 and then last year traveling as a Senator throughout the State. The President's health care prescription results in bad side effects for American businesses by hitting job creators with new taxes and new regulations that they desperately don't need at this point in our struggle to regain economic growth. Take the employer mandate. The law penalizes businesses that do not provide employees with government-approved health care plans. Beginning in 2014, American businesses with more than 50 employees will be fined $2,000 per employee if they do not offer a health insurance plan approved by the Federal Government. I have talked to a number of business people who have gone through painful negotiations with their workers and with their laborers and with staff. They have put together a health care plan that is accepted by both management and by employees who recognize that if they cannot maintain some semblance of control over costs, the jobs might not be available in the future because the company cannot afford to keep people at work. So in recognition of all of this negotiation that goes on and the contractual obligations that both sides work to achieve, understanding that if the business is hit with too much tax and too many regulations the business may not survive, those plans now come under the scrutiny of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government will determine whether those plans are sufficient and adequate. If it determines they are not, then a fine is levied against the business. I cannot tell my colleagues how many business people told me: Look, I would rather pay the fine than have the government impose all of these new regulations on us when we are working carefully with each employee to make sure they have their basic insurance needs covered. Yet, if we are forced into a set plan of set procedures for every employee, then I have two choices, the business people say: I can either refuse to do so and pay the penalty of about $2,000 per employee, or I can let people go. The bottom line is, if I can't make my bottom line, I cannot keep these people employed. The arbitrarily fixed basis that small businesses under 50 employees will not be subject to this leaves manufacturers and business people who are slightly below that level--say at 45 or 40 or 35--a dilemma as they are seeking to expand their business. ``As soon as I hire No. 50, then my business is no longer exempt. So what do I do? I freeze out hiring more people and look to double up people's salaries or put people on overtime.'' At a time when we have over 12 million people looking for a job and millions of people underworked or working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet, we are imposing this law on them. It could not have come at a worse time. Then there is a medical device tax and several other taxes that are included in this bill that we continue to find as we read the fine print. Indiana is a State that is home to a lot of medical device manufacturers. In fact, there are over 300 registered medical device manufacturers that employ 20,000 Hoosiers in the State of Indiana and another 28,000 people who benefit from that employment. There are more than 400,000 workers employed nationwide by this industry. So what did the ObamaCare plan propose? Well, we need some pay-fors. To pay for the law, the administration decided to impose a 2.3 percent tax on these medical device manufacturers.

Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President. These medical device manufacturers are employing people at an average rate of about 41 percent greater than the average worker rate of pay in my State, so these are desired jobs. But, again, employers and manufacturers of medical devices are telling me they are being forced to go overseas because of the burden of regulation and a tax that has nothing to do with the essential program of the health care plan. That is not the only tax that is imposed in this law. There are many hidden taxes here that we are just learning about. Let me name five: the excise tax on charitable hospitals; the drug industry tax, separate from medical devices; the health insurance industry tax; the insurer excise tax; and a Blue Cross-Blue Shield tax hike. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the health care law imposes more than $550 billion in new taxes and penalties, most of which will fall on the middle class. Third, the impact on the State of Indiana. ObamaCare forces States to expand Medicaid rolls so significantly that it will be imposed--and this has been talked about earlier today-- upon the States in a way that can cripple their ability to try to find some balance in their budgets. In Indiana, where our budget is in far better shape than many other States, we still cannot afford the current Medicaid Program, let alone the projected new costs that will be required under the ObamaCare law. An outside group has estimated that $3.1 billion in new costs over the next decade will be imposed on Indiana taxpayers if the 1.5 eligible Hoosiers enroll in Medicaid as a result of this health care law. This added expense does not include any payment relief to providers and, therefore, shifts costs to patients by driving up premiums for all Hoosiers. In conclusion, we have to ask the question: What is the remedy for this fatal disease called ObamaCare? Well, the remedy may lie with the Supreme Court. They are hearing arguments on this today, and will for the next 2 days, and we will have a decision on the constitutionality of this law by the summer. But the health care debate also, most likely, will end up back here in Congress one way or another, and that leaves us the responsibility of addressing this. From forcing individuals to purchase insurance, to taxing successful job creators and burdening State budgets, I believe the health care law is so deeply flawed that it must be scratched and replaced with real reform, reform that lowers the cost of care, allows the doctor--your doctor, not the government--to decide the kind of medical care you need, and provides flexibility to States. Real health care reform lowers costs, it improves access to quality care, empowers individuals, and preserves personal liberties; and that is not what we have in the law that currently is on the books. So whether through congressional legislation or court action, ObamaCare needs to be overturned and replaced with commonsense provisions that put patients--not government, not bureaucrats--in charge of health care decisions. ObamaCare has proven to be the wrong prescription, and it is time for a new treatment. Americans want reform that remedies our ailing health care system, not one that weakens it and drives it deeper and drives us deeper as a Nation into debt. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield on that, I don't want to interrupt the tribute to Senator Mikulski, and I know the Senator has some business he has arranged. I will give mine another time. You don't have to include me in the queue. I don't want to spoil the party. The tribute is worthwhile, and I will find another time to do this.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is a matter of equity and fairness. The reality is that a majority of States, such as Indiana, my State, and many others do not receive their fair share of the distribution of highway funds. This bill unfairly rewards a minority of States that have collected earmarks in the past that go to establishing the historical benchmark from which the distributions are made. This amendment creates a new system by which everyone is treated equally and treated fairly. A system of winners and losers is not the way we should go forward with distributing funds that are paid by our taxpayers for the building of roads and bridges. So let's address the current inequity in this bill and give each State its rightful share. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. COATS. I urge my colleagues to take a look at getting fairness in the distribution of funds. A majority of States are not treated fairly.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1779 on behalf of Senator Alexander, and amendments Nos. 1589 and 1756 on behalf of Senator DeMint, en bloc.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment No. 1517, which is at the desk.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment No. 1517 is of major significance to Indiana, as well as to a majority of the States across this country. Most people are familiar with the fact that when they pull up to the pump, they are not only paying for the cost of gas, they are paying the tax on the cost of that gas. The Federal tax on that gasoline pumped into the tank is then sent to Washington and put into a so-called Federal gas tax fund--a trust. The word ``trust'' is somewhat of a misnomer because, like so many trusts that we create, it doesn't live up to its name. A trust means that it is safeguarded, and nobody else can touch it or use it. The trust fund was designed to collect taxes from the sale of gasoline at the Federal level and then, under a provision, return that tax back to the State. The bottom line is that the majority of States in this country are not getting back what they put in. This amendment is designed to correct that flaw, or at least that current provision, in terms of the way the trust fund is operated. My colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, just announced an amendment that I think makes a great deal of sense. I intend to support that. This is somewhat of a similar amendment, except that what this requires is that a State receives its fair share of what it puts into the trust fund. My State, like many across the Nation, draws the short end of the stick in terms of getting our money back, in that it turns the trust fund into a distribution fund, based upon the outdated formula and continuation of the broken earmark process. In reality, many States receive less than they put in. The interesting part of this is that there is a formula created by which an average of the amount of money spent by States is calculated, and States are rewarded on that basis, and the money is distributed on the basis of how that historical average is calculated. So States that have had very efficient Members of Congress creating earmarks and pouring more money into their States by earmarking end up with a higher historical average. As a result those States benefit now from the distribution from the trust fund to a greater degree. In fact, they are called the donee States because they receive more than what is put in from the donor States. So those States that have taken more responsible fiscal measures in terms of how they spend their money and how they spend the taxpayers' dollars, such as the State of Indiana, end up being shortchanged simply because we have been more prudent in terms of how we spend our money. We haven't relied on earmarks over the years in Indiana, which under the current version of this bill would have raised our historical average. As a consequence we end up being a donor State donating more money to Washington than we receive in return. The Senate has recently passed legislation to end the practice of earmarking. I think this is a very positive step forward. But we now have a Federal program that, in a sense, is calculated and based on the practice of past earmarking. So if we are serious about eliminating earmarking, we are also going to need to fix the formulas used in current programs that are rewarding States with more money than they deserve because these states received more earmarks in previous years. My amendment fixes this inequity and restores the trust fund to its original intent--to give taxpayer money back to them in the amount they deposited. Under my amendment each State will get back what it put in out of the total available funds. It is a fairness issue and the trust fund is truly a trust fund. This amendment will send a message to the American people and the administration that Congress is serious about changing the culture in Washington. The American people have rejected earmarking, and it would be irresponsible for this institution to reward that practice under this highway bill. So I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. It takes a stand for fairness and fiscal integrity. It will be brought up on Tuesday. I urge my colleagues to support this both from the standpoint of fairness--which gives back to every State and every taxpayer the money a fair share of what they put into the trust fund as ending the practice of rewarding States that benefitted from earmarks and punishing those that have been fiscally prudent. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business on a matter that affects a lot of Hoosiers. I do so with a great sense of heartfelt condolence to all who have suffered from the tragic storm and tornadoes that swept across the southern part of our State this past Friday, gratitude for all of those who responded in such a wonderful way to address this situation, and deep pride for the people of Indiana for how they have come together to help one another. Mother Nature's unforgiving force Friday afternoon, changed the lives of many Hoosiers. Imagine, if you would, a stretch of land extending for nearly 50 miles, between a quarter of a mile and a half mile wide, with everything in its path destroyed by tornadoes that touched down and moved with such unimaginable force. Most of us from the Midwest are used to tornadoes that usually jump around and take out a shed here, a barn there, maybe a home, in perhaps a short stretch of space, but I have never seen--and most have never seen--a tornado that touches down and stays down for miles and miles with 175 mile-per-hour winds crushing everything in its path. On Sunday, I flew over the path of the tornadoes and walked on the ground and saw a site of total destruction. Every home and every business in that path destroyed. Every open field was strewn with debris. Some debris carried for miles before it was deposited. Every tree was stripped bare and flattened, every car or truck within that path damaged with either softball-sized hail or turned upside down by 175 mile-per-hour winds. A house miraculously still intact was picked up off its foundation and moved 100 yards east. Several rural towns--small rural towns in southern Indiana--were totally destroyed by the force of nature. A high school of more than 1,100 students now lies in complete shambles. Buses stationed at the schools and cars were hurled into the buildings across the street. An entire family--mom, dad, and children--were killed just because the storm hit seconds before they were able to reach the steps leading down to the basement. Yet, through all of these devastating images, I saw and heard firsthand stories of heroism, generosity and resolve that I will always remember: Two schoolbus drivers who made a split-second decision to turn around and get the kids off the bus and into a shelter--both of those buses were totally destroyed just moments later. The first responders, local police, fire, and rescue teams who searched for victims, helped the injured and did everything they could to offer support in light of this tragedy; neighbors who rushed in to help the injured, citizens from nearby towns and counties who poured into the area offering food and drink and shelter; people saying: Do you have a place to stay? Do you have something to eat? What can we do to help? Former strangers became immediate friends. On Sunday morning, as I walked through what was the town of Henryville, I witnessed a remarkable scene: displaced homeowners picking through the rubble of their homes trying to recover lost memories and precious keepsakes; one man planting an American flag on the rubble of his former home. I was deeply moved by the indomitability of the American spirit, a spirit still so alive and well in a time of tragedy. Soon the first responders will be returning home, if they haven't already, from a job well done, to wait for the next call to action while the State and Federal assessment teams begin the process of restoration. Piece by piece, day by day, the people of Indiana will rebuild their homes, their churches, their schools, and their communities destroyed by these tornadoes. One woman captured the feeling of Hoosiers' best when she turned to me while standing on the remains of what used to be her home and said: We will go on. We will recover. We will make it right again. I am asking all Americans to keep Hoosiers, Kentuckians, and all of the victims of these tragic storms which raced through the Midwest in their thoughts and prayers. I ask all Americans to remember how quickly life can change, but also to remember the American spirit which compels us to reach out and help a neighbor in trouble. I am going to continue to work with Indiana Governor Daniels, his homeland security team, the administration, and FEMA to make sure Hoosiers and the communities impacted are receiving the help they need. We will never be able to replace the lives of those lost from Mother Nature's destruction, but Hoosiers will come together to rebuild one day at a time. It is the Hoosier way, and thank goodness it is still the American way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. I thank him also for his willingness to engage with this amendment, to put it in play here for us to debate and discuss. It is a very fundamental principle of our Constitution that is at stake, and it deserves debate, and it deserves this body putting their yea or nay on the line relative to how we are going to go forward. I commend him for his leadership, and I am pleased to join him, as well as many others, in this colloquy. This is an issue that is as old as this Nation. We are all blessed to live in this Nation and are blessed by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, guaranteeing our rights. The very first right they guaranteed in the Constitution was the right to religious freedom. Many of the earliest settlers came here because of that right and their desire to come to a country where their religious beliefs, tenets, and principles would be respected and honored, where they would not be dictated to by a government like they lived under before they came here, but it would be protected and preserved as a basic fundamental right. It was a transformational idea at the time. Yet, now for well more than 220 years or so, it has been maintained throughout the history of this country. It stands as a bulwark against government interference with personal beliefs and government trying to dictate how we exercise the religious freedoms we are all so privileged to have. It has been said--and I want to repeat it--that the debate today is not about access to contraception. This is not about whether it is appropriate to use contraception. It is not about a woman's right to contraception. As a pro-life Christian and a Protestant, I am not against contraception, but I also believe it is a decision individuals must make in accordance with their own faith and beliefs, not a decision to be made by the Federal Government. What this is about is whether Congress is going to sit by and idly allow this administration to trample our freedom of religion--that core American principle--or whether we will stand and protect what our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line for and what millions of Americans today will defend. We cannot pick and choose when to adhere to the Constitution and when to cast it aside in order to achieve political prerogatives. We must consistently stand for our timeless constitutional principles. The debate that is taking place is a stand to protect an inalienable right, the right of conscience established in our Nation's founding days and sustained for over 200 years. I regret that this issue has been reframed for political purposes into a woman's right to choose, to deny women the opportunity to exercise their right to make a choice. That is not what this is about at all. Yet some have said it has been so successfully reframed that, politically, those who defend this as a matter of religious conscience and freedom are on the losing side of the political argument. Well, we may be or we may not be. I think it is up to this body to decide that with a thorough debate and vote that puts our yeas and nays on the line. Nevertheless, whether it is a winner or a loser politically, it is irrelevant to the argument. It should be irrelevant to the debate because this clearly is a fundamental principle of religious freedom that needs to be protected regardless of the political consequences. So those of us standing up to debate this are setting aside any kind of political risks, any advice that basically says: You don't want to touch this because it has been reframed in a way that the American people don't understand it. We are here to say that we stand to protect the liberties that are granted to us by our Constitution and, regardless of political consequences, we will continue to do that. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Blunt and all those who are willing to address this issue and trust that our colleagues will see this as a fundamental breach of a constitutional provision provided to us by the people who sacrificed their lives to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not sure what the order is here. I am happy to defer to whatever has been agreed to.

Mr. COATS. I will try to do less, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. This is the third anniversary of the President's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. But it is not an anniversary worth celebrating. Back then, the Obama administration promised the American people that the stimulus bill, if passed, would keep unemployment below 8 percent and create 3.5 million jobs. So let's look at where we are today. The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for a record 36 months, and our economy has lost nearly one-half million jobs since the stimulus was passed. We can't conclude anything else other than the fact that the stimulus has failed--and failed badly. It was a misuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it proves that when government tries to pick winners, many of their choices such as Solyndra, turn out to be losers and all that at the expense of the American taxpayer. By looking at the President's budget proposal that we are going to be dealing with this year for the next fiscal year, it appears the administration has not learned from its past mistakes. Despite some glimmers of hope for improvement in our economy, today millions of Americans awoke across the country without a job. This morning, millions of Americans are wondering how to make their next mortgage payment, how to pay for their medical bills, and how to fill up their gas tanks without breaking the bank. But little is being done here in Washington to address this. While it is obvious that there are no silver bullets or short-term fixes to this problem, we have not taken the necessary steps to get ahold of our larger fiscal issue and problem--the growing red ink and debt our economy is being burdened with through the policies that are enacted and not enacted here in Washington. The Obama budget is out of touch with the reality of our fiscal situation. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget increases spending every year, proposes the largest tax increase in history, burdens the country with more debt, and never balances the budget. As we have seen before, the administration's budget principles cannot be anything but spend more, borrow more, and tax more. This is a failed approach, it is dropping us deeper and deeper into debt, and making our solutions more difficult every day that we spend more than we take in. One of the major things we have not addressed this year because we have not exhibited the will to do so is failure to address entitlements. Entitlements and mandatory spending plus the interest we pay on borrowed debt continue to eat up ever more of our budget, a larger and ever growing percentage which will continue over the next years at a staggering number. It simply is not sustainable. While we must work to save our safety net programs that we have promised the American people, we need to understand that doing nothing makes the situation worse and does not do anything to help retirees. We have to be honest--with those retirees and those nearing retirement and those who are looking to the future--about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Medicare is projected to go broke by 2024. Over the next decade, Social Security spending will grow by 6 percent annually, and by 2026, benefits for all retirees will have to be cut by a minimum of 23 percent if we are to keep the trust fund solvent. The gravest threat to Medicare and Social Security is doing nothing. We in fact are doing nothing. We will have legislation to vote on here today that further exacerbates the problem of the Social Security trust fund. This is couched as a tax break for American people to be extended as a result of a payroll tax cut on their Social Security contributions. So instead of putting today's requirement of a percentage of your income into the Social Security trust fund for the benefit of retirees and our own retirement when we finish our careers, and the American people's retirement, we are deducting from that trust fund money that is going to have to be paid back. It is a shell game. We are telling the American people they are going to continue for the next year to get a payroll tax cut but the tax cut is taken out of the contribution to the Social Security trust fund. I am amazed that AARP or Save Social Security or all the entities that put ads on the air and send mailers to people around the country that say don't let Congress cut our Medicare funds, don't let cut Congress cut our Social Security--where are they today, saying Congress is robbing our Social Security trust fund and then they call this a tax cut? Be honest with the American people. We are simply taking money from the trust fund for retiree benefits, making Social Security come closer and closer to bankruptcy and insolvency, at the same time not telling the American people that this so-called tax cut is robbing that fund. We will be presented with a vote today to be honest with the American people, saying you have a shell game going on here that will have to be repaired, probably with borrowed dollars, that is going to make our situation worse, yet we go home and say we have extended a tax cut for you. Let's at least be honest with the American people and straight out and tell them we are taking the money out of your Social Security trust fund to extend the program here to give you a so-called tax break. It is a shell game. It is going to have to be repaid. I think it is clear that we simply have not addressed the fundamental problems underlying the fiscal situation that exists here in the United States. Until we level with the American people and until we have the will to step forward and do what is necessary to save this country from default, to save these social safety net programs from default, we will be continuing what has been done in the past, and that is leaving us in an ever more precarious position. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I come to the floor today frustrated, as many of us are, that once again we are not able to address legislation in the way the Senate is designed to address it, which is to debate, to discuss, to offer amendments, and to vote. Once again the majority leader has decided he didn't like some of the proposed amendments and, therefore, is trying to shut off all opportunity to provide amendments. We are allowed to come down and give our little speeches, but there is no debate, there is no back and forth, there is no record of where we stand on certain issues except for final passage. I think the American people want more than that. That is not why they sent us here. This is my second time in the Senate, with a 12-year gap in between my terms, and a lot of people ask me what has changed since my first time here. I say one thing that has dramatically changed--and which didn't happen my first time in the Senate--is that we used to be able to come to the floor and essentially offer any amendment at any time to any bill. That is the difference between Senate procedure and the rules in the House of Representatives. We don't have a Rules Committee that dictates which amendments can be offered and which ones can't. This is supposed to be a body where we have an open discussion, where any Member can offer any amendment to any bill at any time. So in my first 10 years, that is what we did. It made for long nights, it made for long days, but we were performing the function our Founding Fathers designed for this body to fulfill. Somehow it worked out. We went on record. Our yea was yea, and our nay was nay, and it was all there for the public to see. The amendments that were offered, the debate that took place, and the vote that was conducted were all there. Then we went home and explained why we voted yes or why we voted no. But the public had full transparency. Today, and in this period of time--and I have just been here a year and a month in my second stint in the Senate--it is very seldom we have that opportunity. Once again, on the highway bill, which affects every American in every State, we have finally gotten to the real thing. Our side has put up some amendments, and the majority has looked at them and said: No, we don't want our Members to have to vote on those, so we will use a procedure called ``filling the tree.'' Now, that doesn't mean anything to Americans--filling the tree. What am I talking about? There is a procedure in the Senate where we can only offer so many amendments to a particular bill before we are precluded from offering another. The majority leader of the Senate-- whether Republican or Democrat--has the opportunity, if he or she wants to take it, to gain the floor and procedurally put us in a position where no amendments can be offered and then move to talking about it and to immediate debate. That is not the way we should proceed. I was prepared to give this highway bill a real chance. I have some real problems with the bill that is before us. The House is passing legislation that has many things in it I like--some things I don't like--and we were all looking for an opportunity to try to address those particular concerns. I have a particular concern with the bill that is brought before the Senate because this bill, for starters, goes into the general fund and beyond the sales tax for gasoline purchases fund. Everybody thinks when they pull up to the pump and fill their car with gas, they know there is a Federal tax attached to the price we pay, but they know it goes into a tax fund specially designed to provide for construction and provide for return to the States so they can build the roads and repair the bridges and do things associated with transportation. That is why we pay that gas tax. That is supposed to be apportioned in a rational way back to the States so they can do what is needed for their State to provide the kind of transportation their State wants. This bill not only uses all the money that is paid into that fund but adds an additional $12 billion of spending that is from the general fund. The pay-fors aren't legitimate. So, once again, we are in a situation where we are borrowing money, going into debt, increasing deficit spending and increasing the debt load we have in order to enhance the money we are going to send out to the States. Many of us have said based on what we have seen and what has happened here in years that has driven us into a deficit which cannot be sustained and a debt which may never be repaid, we are simply not going to support legislation that spends more than we take in without being paid for. We can't keep doing this. Now we are in a situation where we have a bill before us that is needed because we need these funds to give to the States to build the roads and repair the bridges, but we are dipping into the general fund for an additional $12 billion. Secondly, there is an inequitable treatment to States. I bring this chart to show how this affects various States. If we take what a State has paid into the fund and look at what a State receives back, we will see there is an inequity present. Part of the general fund money that is going into this might try to make up for some of that. But if we stay with the principle upon which highway funding has always been funded; that is, a State gets returned its proportionate share of what the taxpayers pay when they pull up to the pump in that State and fill their car with gas, there are some States that fall within a real deep deficit. It starts with the State of Texas. Texas loses $1,113,000,000 that is paid in but doesn't come back to them under the formula. My home State of Indiana is third on the list. We lose $275 million because what we pay into the fund is not returned to us. These are all of the donor States. Donor States are those that pay in more than they receive back. They are pretty big States and have a real stake in this and would have had a real stake in this amendment. These States would have had an opportunity to vote for or against this amendment had I been allowed to offer it. The States of Texas, Georgia $283 million, New Jersey, Florida, California, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and on it goes. Members can take a look at this chart. This is the amount of money they lose because they are not getting their fair share back and they are the donor States. The money that is lost is sent to other States that are the donee States. So our taxpayers in Indiana are paying the equivalent of $283 million to other States. We have been a State that has managed our fiscal situation very well and we have been very careful. We have this old-fashioned belief that we shouldn't spend more money than we take in, and we live by that principle in Indiana. We have been careful in how we have managed our money and how we have used the money that is sent to us that we paid into the gas tax fund. Yet we are penalized because we have managed our finances well, and Hoosier taxpayers end up sending money to States that haven't done as well. The second problem is, this bill falls short because though we are no longer doing earmarks, it includes earmarks from over the past several years, and the total of those earmarks goes into the total average of spending for that particular State, and the formula then is based on the fact that the big earmarkers end up getting more money, while States such as Indiana that have not pursued those earmarks lose out because the average is based on the accumulative amount that is paid into the fund, including earmarks. Once again, a State that has been careful in terms of managing and spending its money ends up being penalized because we haven't pursued earmarks, which, fortunately, are no longer part of our method of doing business. Indiana pays approximately 2.71 percent of the total Federal gas tax, and we would like to get 2.71 of that back. If we do get that back, it will have a significant effect. We have a second chart that talks about what is paid into the highway trust fund just for a few States that we listed, the apportionment under the bill that is before us and the amount that is below the fair share and I have read some of those. Again, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, and Florida being the top five States that are penalized for this. I also had amendments I was going to add that would give States greater flexibility in terms of how they use the money they receive. We have all heard the stories about money being diverted to things that a State doesn't want because there is a formula attached to the legislation that says you have to spend X percent of money on certain projects, such as bike paths and walking paths and other so-called enhancements. I am not against that. I use those. I jog on bike paths and appreciate some of those enhancements. But that ought to be a State decision in terms of how it allocates its money and not a Federal decision because a one-size-fits- all dictated by a particular piece of legislation simply does not take into account the individual needs of a particular State. Some States may want to say: Look, our roads are in such shape and our bridges need repaired. At least for this year or the next 2 years, we are going to divert the money into strictly construction and repair projects. Others might say: Well, we are in a little bit better shape this year and we can use some of this. That ought to be for the States to decide and not a piece of legislation coming out of this body. Finally, another amendment I would have liked to offer, if not for the majority leader's refusal for an open-amendment process, is one that would have limited the scope of eligible transportation enhancement projects. We hear these reports every day about crumbling roads and unsafe bridges. Yet what we are doing in this bill is limiting how a State determines where it puts its funds. I think we ought to narrow that option, if not take it away. To wrap up, let me just say I think it is very unfortunate that we have resorted to a system where if the other side--and I would say this to my leader if my party was in the majority. This is not how the Senate is supposed to operate. Someone from the other side who has an amendment we don't like, they ought to have the opportunity to offer that amendment and they ought to have the opportunity to debate that amendment and to require a vote on that amendment. Then we can vote yes or we can vote no and the public can judge us accordingly. But to simply shut it all down and not give anybody that opportunity I think is not the kind of procedure we want. Finally, let me simply say this bill brought before us is a flawed bill. Without the process of amending it or the opportunity to amend, to fix what we think is wrong with it, puts us in a position where it is impossible to say we can vote for something such as this. For the reasons I have articulated and for other reasons that will come out as we make these speeches on the floor but don't have a chance to offer amendments, I simply cannot support this bill as it is. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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