Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask the minority leader if it would be possible to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COATS. No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I thank the minority leader for this opportunity. Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act Mr. President, recently on this floor, I spoke about the need to pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with robust, veto-proof, bipartisan majorities. That is asking a lot, but I did so because this is the only chance we have to prevent President Obama from having a free and totally independent hand to conclude a flawed agreement with the Government of Iran. We cannot allow that to happen. This Congress has pleaded for and worked for and will achieve the opportunity to play a major role in this decision, which is a decision of historic consequence. Let me repeat what I just said. This bill is the only chance we have now to prevent President Obama from having a completely free hand, with no opportunity to address it in a bipartisan way, to achieve success in rejecting a bad agreement. Passage of the bill before us will result in either forcing critical and absolutely necessary improvements in the deal now being cooked with our Secretary of State and the President and his people or defeating a bad deal if a bad deal is presented to us. The stakes in this game are beyond calculation. I personally regard this as the most consequential issue of my entire public career. Our failure to have an opportunity to have this Congress--the representatives of the American people--bring before the American people what is in this deal and the consequences if this deal is not a good deal that will prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons capability--this is absolutely essential. The only chance we have to exercise our constitutional right, which I believe, but our right to address something of this consequence is to pass the Corker-Cardin bill. It is not the perfect bill. It is not the bill that I think perhaps even Senator Corker would have preferred. But it is where we are. The only way we could get here and get bipartisan support for this was to do this. This gives us the opportunity to do the following: A Congressional review period will be provided before implementation. An opportunity for Congress to vote on the agreement will be provided under Corker- Cardin. A limitation on the President's use of waivers to suspend sanctions that have been put in place by this body will be taken away. A requirement that Congress receive the final deal will be lost. The requirement that the President certify that Iran is complying will be taken away. A mechanism for Congress to rapidly reimpose sanctions in the event of violations will be lost. Reporting on Iran support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, and human rights violations will be lost. All of this is lost if we do not stand together and insist on the right to engage in this. We must pass this or the defeat will be of historical consequence. This bill is the only chance, as I said, that Congress has to weigh in on a potential agreement. The stakes are too high. The consequence is too great to engage in changes. Many well-intended statements have been made by my colleagues, and I endorse every word of what has been said. Amendments have been offered that, had they not been offered by someone else, in a different fashion, I would have wanted to offer. We can still offer those going forward. But in order to achieve the bipartisan support necessary to deny the President the opportunity to have a free hand in cutting any deal he wants and the concessions already given--this should raise alarms in each of us in terms of support for this bill which is before us. What are the stakes? What are the consequences? Former Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz and other foreign policy experts did a recent Wall Street Journal piece and said this: If the Middle East is ``proliferated'' and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? They continue: It is in America's strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement. In closing, I want to address statements offered by some who argue that passing this bill is unnecessary because in 2017 we will have a new President in the White House and that President will be a Republican. Well, I hope that is so, but there is obviously no guarantee of that. But in the meantime--in the meantime--Iran will achieve a free hand to go forward with newly acquired wealth, the will to achieve and the technical capability to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Let me conclude by supporting a statement that was made by Max Boot, a respected foreign policy analyst: Skeptics about the looming nuclear accord with Iran may be taking comfort from the promises of Republican presidential candidates to tear up the treaty as soon as they reach the Oval Office. They shouldn't be. Even assuming a Republican wins the White House next year-- Which, as we know, is not a certainty. Hopefully, from our standpoint, we hope that is the case-- pulling out of the agreement won't necessarily fix its defects. In fact, it could make the situation even worse. The U.S. would then get the worst of both worlds: Iran already would have been enriched by hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief--and it would be well on its way to fielding nuclear weapons with de facto permission from the international community. To avoid this nightmare scenario, the best play from America's standpoint could well be to keep the accord in place to at least delay Iran's decision to weaponize. In short, don't expect salvation in 2017. If the accord is signed its consequences will be irrevocable. Whatever a future president does or does not do, Iran's hard-line regime will be immeasurably strengthened by the agreement. That makes it all the more imperative to stop a bad agreement now--not two years from now. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote to give Congress--this Congress--the right and the opportunity to scrutinize every single word of what is being negotiated with the Iranians, to inform the American people, and then achieve what I would hope would be an overwhelming rejection of the agreement if it does not achieve the goal of denying Iran its nuclear weapons capability. This is a very important vote before us. I think we need to look at what the end goal is and how we can best get there under the circumstances which we now are in. We would all like to be in a different position. But to achieve and get to this particular point, we are looking at this particular bill to give us a say--a meaningful say--and an opportunity to reject a bad agreement which at this particular point in time, in my view, does not achieve what we need to achieve and should be thoroughly scrutinized by us and the American people. I yield the floor. Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, today I return to the floor of the Senate for my ninth installment of ``Waste of the Week.'' I think the Presiding Officer has been here for most of those nine installments. My purpose has been straightforward: to highlight waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending. So far, we have reached a potential taxpayer savings of almost $50 billion. I have a chart here which shows the ever-increasing amount of red ink, representing waste of taxpayers' dollars, caused by fraud and abuse and waste from programs that simply haven't proven their effectiveness. We are on the way to $100 billion. Today we are going to reach and go over the halfway mark. We are going to continue to do this, and, hopefully, we will be extending this chart in the future, which now shows just some examples of what we have provided before. The largest example of waste, fraud, and abuse disclosed was found in the refundable child care tax credit to the tune of $20 billion in potential savings. These are from people who did not qualify--they were ineligible for receipt--yet over a 10-year period of time, they will receive $20 billion which they are not entitled to. The smallest but by far the most inexplicable--and even laughable and ludicrous--example of waste was a $387,000 grant for a study to determine whether massages on New Zealand rabbits after strenuous exercise would help their recovery time. Now, anybody who has been out in the yard, fixing around the house doing strenuous activity, when asked if they think a massage would help them recover, probably is going to say yes. In fact, the rabbits were getting it four times a day. While they couldn't say yes, I think the response clearly was that this is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, it costs the taxpayer $387,000 in grant money to prove that, yes, the massages helped after strenuous exercises. It is not exactly what the taxpayer had in mind. When they sent their tax dollars to Washington. When they paid their taxes on April 15 and filed their return--that is not exactly what they were sending their money to Washington to do. Is it laughable? Yes. Is it tragic? Yes. We are spending significant amounts of money and it is going to waste, fraud, and abuse. By the way, the rabbits were all euthanized after the results, so they enjoyed the massages, but it didn't last and they are no longer with us. Perhaps the most important example of waste was to protect Americans from identity theft and taxpayers from fraud. By correcting Social Security records, we could save at least $2 billion. This is the famous Methuselah example. The Social Security Administration had not deleted the Social Security numbers of those who had died. The number is staggering. It was 6.5 million, I believe--the number of people who would have exceeded the age of 112 years. In other words, they applied for Social Security back in the early 1930s or mid-1930s when the program began, but their numbers were never erased. They were then used for fraud. The savings, if we could correct that problem--and I have proposed legislation to do so--would be $2 billion. This week, I wish to speak about the Department of Agriculture. Now, being from a State such as Indiana, agriculture is obviously very important and I am a strong supporter of Hoosier farming. I fight for family farms as they seek to survive from generation to generation. I support cutting redtape and Federal mandates that unnecessarily burden Hoosier farmers. As a broader issue, I recognize that food production is extremely important not only for our own benefit but rises to the level of even being an issue of national security. But that is not what I am talking about today. Today, I wish to speak about taxpayer dollars that are being used to fund grants not for farming but for marketing. Let me give some examples. U.S. law currently on the books creates a grant program requiring that the ``Secretary of Agriculture shall award competitive grants in developing a business plan for viable marketing opportunities.'' Well, there is a real question as to whether this ought to be mandated through the Federal Government; that is, should the government select those who apply for grants to develop a marketing program. The problem is that very few end up with the grants, but for those who do, it is a special deal for them. Winners and losers really shouldn't be selected by the Federal Government for a grant that doesn't go directly to production but actually goes to marketing of agricultural goods. Let me give an example. One of the winners was a single farm that received a $44,700 grant to increase sales of its pumpkins and squash, including pumpkin doughnuts. I am not making this up. The grant was there to promote the marketing of pumpkin doughnuts--they probably taste pretty good--as a nutritious, locally produced food. The farmer down the road didn't get his grant. Maybe he was growing corn. The farmer on the other side of the road was growing soybeans, another was growing wheat, another might be growing tomatoes, another might be growing different types of fruit, and so forth and so on, but the one who was growing pumpkins somehow qualified. The government said: Hey, that is a winner. Let's put a marketing plan together. Here is $44,700 to do so. That is one example. Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, taxpayers are funding things such as helping to process olives into olive oil. I think that is a practice that goes back a few thousand years--just ask the Italians. I don't know that we needed a grant to do that. There is a grant for helping to develop and market sparkling wine and hard cider. We have been drinking wine since the beginning of time. I think the French know how to market sparkling wines. Maybe we can read how to do it rather than putting a grant together to promote that. There are grants for the marketing of goat's milk, cheese, and soaps and providing organic chicken meat for restaurants. Look, I am not against the agriculture community marketing its products. Every product maker markets their products. But do we need all this expenditure of taxpayer money to prove whether there can be a better marketing program for a select few? What about the many who don't have any basis or ability to claim these grants? Over the past 10 years, grantees under this program have received over $290 million. It is a pretty sweet deal for the grant recipients, but it is a pretty expensive deal for the taxpayer. And what does this grant process say about the losers, those not selected? In essence, what we are doing is promoting a few select products. Why are we promoting pumpkin doughnuts over banana nut muffins? What about watermelons and not cantaloupes, carrots, turnips--and on and on we go. Well, the Federal Government is here to protect farmers and entrepreneurs so they can compete in a fair and dependable economic climate. But at the end of the day, these government-selected projects are not the best use of taxpayer money and are in stark contrast to what the government ought to be doing. After all, when taxpayers send their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington, they rightly expect their leaders to steward those resources responsibly. I would argue that taxpayer-funded pumpkin doughnuts are not a good use of taxpayer dollars. I support agriculture, but let's actually support farming, not just pumping up the sales and profits of a select few. We can do better. Today, I am adding $290 million to our taxpayer savings gauge, which puts us over the halfway mark of $50 billion. That is a small amount compared to our budget. That is a small amount in terms of the money that comes flowing into Washington from taxpayers. But we have not been able to address the larger issue, the issue that has to be addressed and is continually pushed down the road, continually pushed back to the next election, and that is the unbelievable growth of entitlement programs that are squeezing out many essential and necessary things the government needs to do, such as health care research. This morning, I was listening to a committee meeting with Francis Collins, who heads up NIH, who was talking about the medical breakthroughs they could have if they just had some more funds and weren't being sequestered with less and less money each year. We need to always--but particularly in difficult fiscal times--direct taxpayers' funding in the most responsible way we can. With that, I will add some more money to our gauge, and we will be back next week for ``Waste of the Week'' No. 10. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--the only measure now before us that will prevent President Obama from having a free and independent hand to conclude a flawed agreement with the Government of Iran. The White House and the Ayatollahs in Iran must know that the Congress will not tolerate a bad deal secretly struck behind our backs and without our approval. The Corker-Menendez bill now before us and being managed by Senator Corker and Senator Cardin on the floor needs our engagement and is the only vehicle we have to send that message. Thus, the passage of this review act is absolutely essential. Its passage will send a message more important than any amendments, no matter how correct or well-conceived, if those amendments would doom the bill, mute the message, and deprive us of this vital role. We have come to a moment of decision in this Chamber. It is clear at last that we are finally close to imposing a vital congressional role in evaluating any deal--something President Obama previously had been determined to avoid. I have long been concerned that the President is determined to implement his version of a deal with Iran on his own, circumventing Congress. This is not acceptable. Resolving this issue with Iran is the most significant foreign policy and security challenge of our age. It cannot be pursued simply by the President potentially overreaching his constitutional authority, longing for a legacy and desperate for a deal. If he fears that a supermajority in Congress would reject this deal if it is presented to us, then he has struck the wrong deal. Fortunately, the right, statesmanlike Presidential support was finally provided after the Foreign Relations Committee voted on an entirely bipartisan basis to give Congress a role in this matter. The question is whether the President will accept the decision made by the Congress as to whether the agreement with Iran achieves the goal of denying Iran nuclear weapons capability. The successful congressional strategy that brought us to that result in committee required the sponsors of this bill--the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--to keep the focus on its core purpose. While there were many amendments considered or offered in the committee that could have improved the bill, the Corker-Menendez bill passed by the Foreign Relations Committee is a necessary first step in achieving the goal of congressional engagement in one of the issues, if not the most important issue of our time. It is now clear that the most important goal at this stage of the misguided and badly managed negotiations with the Iranian regime is that Congress must have a determining voice in accepting or rejecting any deal that is presented to us. With passage of the Corker-Menendez legislation, we will be able to spell out with precision what sort of an Iran deal might be acceptable, what concessions may be going too far, and what the consequences would be if Iran backs away from acceptable conditions. I wish to emphasize and define the worst possible outcome that could happen. If our effort to impose a congressional role fails--if this bill is defeated or the promised veto is upheld--Congress will have become a spent force. Iran will see that Congress is no longer a matter of concern for them. The Iranians will have a green light to continue negotiations with a weak administration desperate for a deal--any deal. The Iranians can play their hand to maximum advantage without concern for the views of Congress or even the views of the American people we represent. At the same time, the Administration would be free to give as much ground as necessary to secure a deal that apparently they so desperately desire. They will be constrained by nothing coming from this Chamber or an impotent Congress. To avoid that outcome, we must focus on keeping the bipartisan majority on this bill solid and robust. So I am cosponsoring, supporting, and will be voting for the Corker-Menendez bill. This is a necessary intermediate step, as I have said, toward a much more crucial vote on the Iran deal itself, where our focus needs to be. Once we have secured a congressional role by passing this bill, we then must use the next 2 months to analyze the outlined agreement that came out of the negotiations in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago, identify its weaknesses, and determine how we should best proceed. As it now stands, as outlined by the so-called political framework, I am profoundly unhappy with what has been agreed to by the Obama Administration. If this is what we see when the result of the final negotiations is presented to us, I will vote against it and do my best to make sure others do as well. We in Congress must make sure the White House knows what we require if a deal is to be accepted. This is not a recent or uninformed position on my part. I have been deeply involved in this issue for the past several years, and I have been concerned about the growing threat of Iran since at least 2001. Back then, when I was our Ambassador in Berlin, the Embassy's biggest challenge was to persuade Germany to support the invasion of Iraq. But the Israeli Ambassador to Germany at the time, Shimon Stein, kept talking to me about what they conceived to be the real, ultimate threat. He convinced me that an even greater threat would be coming from Iran and that this threat would continue to grow until we took it seriously and dealt with it effectively. After returning to the United States, I cochaired with Senator Chuck Robb the original Iran project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. We focused deeply on the Iran nuclear issue and offered detailed analysis and recommendations on how we believed it should be dealt with. Our task force members included such experts as Ash Carter, now Secretary of Defense; Ambassador Dennis Ross, one of the key and most experienced ambassadors and foreign policy analysts--particularly in the Middle East; a number of key generals who had served in the military on Middle Eastern affairs; and a number of other names, including Jack Keane and others. Our reports covered all of the elements of a deal that is acceptable and could best meet, we thought, our national security needs. These included all aspects of fissile material production and how that activity must be limited and controlled; activities at the various nuclear facilities and the type of research and development that must be curtailed; the issue of Iranian stockpiles and their disposition; nuclear weapons design activities in the past that need to be revealed and stopped; missile development work; the critical need of adequate inspection regimes and compliance verification measures; and, importantly, the duration of any future deal. We also examined the requirements of a necessary and credible military option that must back up any diplomatic efforts and sanctions pressure to achieve the right result. It was a last resort, and it was there to apply the pressure needed, along with ever-ratcheting sanctions, if Iran continued to defy the wishes of the United Nations, the wishes of the United States, and the wishes of the free world and all of those who had spoken up about the deadly consequences of the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. Since that early involvement and throughout that period, I supported negotiations as one of the essential tools to solve this problem. I want to state that again. This is not a rush to war. This is doing everything we can to prevent a war, to prevent conflict. I have ardently supported negotiations to try to achieve the necessary result combined with sanctions, putting ever-increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to achieve the desired result, with a backup--not taking off the table the use of force if necessary but only if necessary, only if everything else failed, because four Presidents, including our current President, have stated that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is simply unacceptable. The United Nations has passed numerous resolutions to that effect. Other nations have said the same. Yet, now, we are looking at a framework that might allow Iran to break all of the commitments it made and all of the assertions we made. We need a solution that guarantees our security and assures that Iran will never have nuclear weapons. If the White House cannot be persuaded to bring us a deal that does that, they should not bring us a deal at all. Unfortunately, it is clear to me from the framework agreement and subsequent developments that these negotiations are off track and have been for some time. They do not begin to meet the minimum criteria outlined in our several Bipartisan Policy Center reports. Let me name five major problems that I see currently with the framework proposal that has been agreed to. First, the Obama Administration's negotiating tactics have been seriously flawed from the beginning, abandoning central principles at the very outset of the negotiations. An agreement that builds on the outline emerging from the negotiations and trumpeted by the Administration as a breakthrough will allow Iran to retain a robust, industrial-capacity ability to enrich uranium--the core of nuclear weapons. This was never the intention of the international community until the Obama Administration negotiators took the helm and changed direction. The original intent--to deprive Iran of this nuclear weapons infrastructure--was deemed to be ``just too hard to achieve.'' The result is that Iran can now assume a guarantee that it will have the right to enrich uranium--the regime's fundamental demand from the beginning and one which the United Nations Security Council firmly and consistently refused until the Obama Administration began these negotiations. In the wake of that fundamental concession, we will have to rely on elaborate monitoring and compliance verification mechanisms to keep the uranium enrichment enterprise within agreed bounds. That directly leads to my second major problem with the outlined agreement. On the surface, there is a lot of reassurance that we would be able to detect cheating, and the President has emphasized this point repeatedly. Well, I have seen all of this before. I served here in this Senate when we were told our agreements with North Korea could be verified and would lead to a safer world. We were misled by that illusion. Today, 20 years after the nuclear agreement with North Korea, negotiated by the Clinton Administration, that country now has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and the Chinese experts tell us the North Koreans will have more than 40 by the end of next year and an effective ICBM--intercontinental ballistic missile--to put those weapons on. All that work developing such a huge, dangerous nuclear arsenal was done after we concluded a negotiated agreement to end North Korea's nuclear program, confident that we would be able to detect cheating. Let me repeat that. All that North Korea has achieved in violation of the agreement we made with them has occurred after that agreement, not before. And today they sit as a dangerous nuclear-armed nation, with over 20 nuclear warheads that can be easily--and have been--attached to ICBMs. Now I fear we are making the same mistake in negotiating with another rogue regime. In recent days, it has become difficult for anyone to maintain that the agreement under consideration by this Administration with Iran will provide the transparency we need. Senior Iranian officials and authorities, including the Ayatollah himself and the chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, have said repeatedly that there will be no international inspections of Iranian military facilities. We know that much of the nefarious nuclear weapons development work has gone on in such facilities. Barring access to them must simply be the end of any deal if that holds. The White House has indicated that such hard-line statements by the regime are part of their negotiating tactics. I do not take comfort from that. If that is so, then it must be proven at the negotiating table, not simply by declaration from our White House. If the Administration brings us a deal that does not include complete transparency and the total ability to monitor Iranian compliance anywhere in that country, then all Members of Congress must stand and reject it. Third, I find there are many other nearly sinister details buried within this outline that are hidden from those not steeped in the technical details of this entire matter. Many show that our negotiators caved on key issues, some at the last minute, to prevent Iran from walking out. In fact, the entire negotiations process since it began 6 years ago has been a steady uninterrupted litany of concessions as we give ground on one issue after another. The outline agreement confirms that pattern and hints at more to come. One of the many examples of this is the agreement to allow continuing research and development of the most advanced centrifuges within the Fordow site that is safely buried deep beneath a mountain. Because there will not be uranium enriched there for the first 10 years of the agreement, we are told to take comfort. In fact, the developments that will occur in that sheltered bunker will make a nuclear ``break out'' capability certain and rapid once the agreement expires in a decade. Even President Obama recently admitted that in the final years of the period covered by the outline, ``the breakout time would have shrunk almost to zero.'' That startling admission is a mortal blow to this agreement, in my view, and it comes from the chief advocate of the deal. A fourth problem with the outline is the essential issue of sanctions relief. Initially, after the outline was released, the White House fact sheet emphasized that sanctions would be lifted gradually in stages as the Iranians showed a pattern of compliance with the terms of an agreement. The Iranian negotiators and the Supreme Leader immediately refuted that claim. They continue to say there is no such agreement and that all sanctions must be lifted immediately upon signing. It remains for them a nonnegotiable demand. President Obama responded in a press conference last week that all of a sudden he was not very concerned about the phasing or timing issue or the way sanctions would be lifted. Instead, he said, and again I quote, the so-called ``snap-back'' provisions that would reimpose sanctions in the event of noncompliance were more important. These Presidential comments signaled publicly that once again the Ayatollah could have his way. Sadly, no one seriously gives any credibility to these alleged ``snap-back'' provisions and their efficacy once the sanctions dam has burst. Fifth, another mortal flaw in the outline is the issue of expiration date--the ``sunset clauses''. The outline and the White House talking points are designed to sell or confuse this issue. Various timeframes have been mentioned--10 years, 15 years, 25 years, permanent. The fact is the core limitations on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, if they are actually implemented over time, expire in 10 years, others in 15. The sanctions against Iran will have long since disappeared and Iran will then have the technical ability, the will, and the wealth to sprint toward a nuclear arsenal, as the President has acknowledged. Ten years or even fifteen years is tomorrow afternoon in this dangerous game for the world's future. Again, the President's own words tell us everything we need to know about the effectiveness of the deal he is pressing on us. I quote again. ``What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.'' This is, indeed, the most relevant fear presented by the negotiations with the Iranian regime; namely, the fear that Iran will be given the path to nuclear weapons possession, resulting in consequences that are not acceptable. We should all agree with President Obama that that is, indeed, the most relevant fear presented by his negotiations with the Iranian regime. But at this moment, it seems most probable that we will be called upon to consider a deeply flawed agreement, one that is worse than no agreement at all, but this is not entirely unavoidable. We still have time to press the negotiators on both sides to change the outcome of their talks. The Iranians must know that with passage of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act, Congress has become an important player at the table. There will be no new constraints on their maximalist positions. If they want a deal now, they must give ground; if not, they will face new, more painful, and more relentless sanctions pressure. This is a profound moment in our history. A nuclear-armed Iran would present a danger to the Middle East, to the United States, and to the world that is impossible to overstate. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons always has been at the heart of our nuclear strategy. More than that, it is at the heart of the future of the world. Allowing Iran to develop the capacity to develop those weapons, igniting thereby a nuclear arms race among its neighbors and beyond must be prevented at any cost. There is nothing whatsoever partisan about this request. Neither I nor most of my Republican colleagues are attacking the President or trying to deny him a foreign policy triumph or wishing him ill in this important task. Similarly, I trust our Democratic colleagues will not be blindly supporting the President on this issue no matter what agreement might emerge from the Iran negotiations. In many ways, the future of these negotiations is now in our hands. We must pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with as much bipartisan support as we can achieve in order to play a significant or any role in this process. We must not provoke a veto that can be sustained, thereby depriving Congress of our role and voice. We must all use the next 2 months to press the White House to demand an agreement that permanently halts Iran's nuclear ambitions. We must then evaluate objectively and honestly the agreement that emerges; accept it if we can, reject it if we must. This is a solemn duty that the Constitution requires of the Senate. I trust that each of us will be up to the task and the challenge we are facing. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am just going to speak for a few minutes. I am happy to defer to the Senator from Tennessee, but it shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 minutes. If the Senator is interested, this is this week's installment of my ``Waste of the Week'' speech. I come to the floor every week to point out some spending of taxpayer dollars that perhaps we should absolutely save. The cost to the taxpayers, as I will point out shortly, is in the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars on programs that have already been identified by government agencies as worthless, fraudulent, unnecessary, and wasteful. While we have been unable--and the Senator from Tennessee was a very pivotal part of this effort--to come to an agreement on dealing with the larger issue of saving our country from insolvency down the line, the very least we can do is to point out those areas where we are spending money that absolutely does not need to be spent and can be returned to the taxpayer. This week's waste of the week is such that I can't keep from chuckling over how this could happen, but it happens. Everybody has heard about Ponce de Leon's search for the fountain of youth. Obviously, that hasn't happened. A recently released Social Security Inspector General's report found that 6.5 million individuals over the age of 112 still have active Social Security numbers. How can this happen? Well, it happened because in 1936 when the program started, there were some people even from the mid-1800s who were enrolled in Social Security, and they have never been taken off the rolls. Now, obviously, these people are not all receiving checks, but it opens the prospect for fraud and waste and people getting these numbers, using them, and then receiving Social Security benefits illegally. In this inspector general's report, the Social Security Administration is faulted for poorly managing data on ``number holders who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely deceased.'' Well, to put it mildly, if we have 6.5 million people in America who are over the age of 112, my guess is that most of those people, if not all of those people, are deceased--not likely deceased but are, in fact, deceased. Of those 6.5 million, the Social Security Administration inspector general has determined that nearly 3,900 numbers were run through the U.S. Government's E-Verify system for people more than a century old. The E-Verify system is used when someone applies for a job. So that means thousands of people over 100 years old are applying for these new jobs. Obviously, someone is fraudulently using the system to report a Social Security number for someone over 112 years of age who is in the E-Verify system as applying for a job. Auditors also discovered nearly 67,000 Social Security numbers in recent years were used to report wages for people other than the cardholders themselves. The workers reported about $3 billion in earnings between 2006 and 2011, and then those earnings are used to calculate their Social Security benefits. Obviously, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Auditors have proposed that the Social Security Administration take action to correct death records, but the Social Security Administration says it doesn't want to divert resources away from efforts to improve payment accuracy. I suggest the Social Security Administration might want to reassess their assessment. A gaping hole such as this undermines the confidence of the American people in our government and in the way we run this business of government in both the Social Security Administration and the Federal Government at large. Government agencies have estimated that the Social Security Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2 billion, likely more, if this problem is corrected. So as I do each week, we keep adding to our gauge of savings that now are approaching very close to $50 billion, just over several weeks of pointing out waste and fraud that has been documented by nonpolitical, neutral Federal agencies. We keep adding more. We are approaching $50 billion. Our goal is $100 billion. I think we will go way past that if I keep doing this every week. In order to help correct the problem, I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Carper and others, which will update the Social Security system and ensure accuracy in Federal records, not just in Social Security but in other agencies as well. I am just looking at one agency. Wait until we get into some of the others. The key provisions of our bill include allowing Federal agencies access to the complete death database, because under current law, only agencies that directly handle beneficiary payments may have access to the complete database. The act allows all appropriate Federal agencies to have access to the complete death data program for integrity purposes as well as for other needs such as public safety and health. It requires the use of death data to curb improper payments. Our legislation establishes procedures to ensure more accurate death data. As I have said before, by simply correcting the death records, the Social Security Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2 billion. This is an area that is ripe for reform, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and eliminate this waste, along with the other $49 billion we have identified in just the last few weeks. We would be doing the taxpayers a great service while making our government the efficient, effective government it needs to be, particularly in these times of lack of fiscal discipline. I thank the Chair for the time. I also thank my colleague from Tennessee for giving me this time. Mr. President, I know we have important legislation on the floor this week. This ``Waste of the Week'' speech is kind of tongue in cheek. We are moving on to legislation that has historic consequences for the future of America, for our own future, our children's future, and our grandchildren's future. The debate that will take place this week, led by Senator Corker from Tennessee regarding the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is, in my time of service here in the Senate and in Congress, I think the most consequential piece of legislative debate that I will ever enter into. It will have enormous historical consequences, and we need to get it right. So I commend my colleague Senator Corker for his efforts in this regard. He has moved the legislation through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with total bipartisan support, which is absolutely key to the success of our efforts and necessary to prevent a catastrophic activity taking place in Iran. So I appreciate the time to speak, while not focusing all of my attention and effort, as I hope all of my colleagues will, to this extraordinary challenge that we have before us this week that will determine the future for country and maybe the world. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I am here today to identify yet another installment of the ``Waste of the Week.'' We have been doing this now for several weeks, trying to save taxpayers' dollars out of documented waste of their dollars when they send them to Washington. In recent weeks, I have highlighted examples of waste, some big some small. To date, we have documented over $47 billion of taxpayer funds that have gone to duplication of effort, simply gone to things the Federal Government never should have been involved in in the first place, examples of fraud, abuse--$47 billion and climbing on our tax savings gauge here which is approaching now $50 billion. Our goal is $100 billion. We are going to keep going as we discover each week yet another waste of taxpayer dollars. This week's ``Waste of the Week'' involves the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, also known as FECA. This law was enacted in 1916-- well intended, I think, to provide workers' compensation benefits to civilian Federal employees who sustained injuries while employed by the Federal Government and includes funds for vocational rehabilitation and medical benefits. As I said, it was well intended at the time, providing a lifeline for people injured on the job to keep these people afloat financially until they are ready to go back to work. ``Ready to go back to work'' has become somewhat of a major question in terms of how this 1916 law is applied, because you have to wonder, is someone 99 years old looking to go back to work. Well, in 1916, when this act was enacted, it treated them as if they were and are able to go back to work. Let me explain. Both the FECA compensation and medical benefits are payable for the duration of a person's inability to work, which can extend well into their individual golden years. You say: How does that all happen? But under current law, there is no maximum duration of benefits and no maximum age at which benefits must be terminated. Thus, when beneficiaries become eligible for Federal retirement or disability annuities, they are given the choice as to whether they want to remain in the FECA program or choose the Federal retirement program. Well, it is not much of a choice. The choice is obvious because given the level of benefits monthly, FECA benefits can be a much better deal than what they would be paid under retirement benefit plans. The FECA benefits are as high as 75 percent of the worker's predisability wage. The annual cost-of-living-adjustment is applied each year, the COLA, to the benefits. Someone came up with a pretty interesting idea here. FECA benefits are not taxed. So, clearly, this ends up being a much better deal for beneficiaries. But is it a better deal for taxpayers? That is the question. Let's take a closer look. This applies to all Federal agencies, but let's take one agency. The Department of Labor reports that approximately 45,000 cases currently receive long-term disability benefits under FECA, and 15,000 or one-third of these cases involve beneficiaries aged 66 or older. Clearly, it is time--actually it is past time--to reconsider and make reforms to the FECA. At a minimum, we should require workers, when they reach retirement age, to transition into the retirement plan as all their peers have had to do and not continue, throughout their lifetime, the much more generous benefits of FECA. As I said, the agency with the most FECA claims is the U.S. Postal Service. I want to use this as an example of how this is applied. The Postal Service Office of Inspector General told us that FECA rolls include 9,554 postal workers aged 55 or older eligible for retirement; 3,389 aged 65 and over; 928 aged 80 or older; and, yes, one postal worker at the age of 99. So in 2013 the U.S. Postal Service paid about $1.3 billion in workers' compensation claims and $67 million in administrative fees. In addition, as of June 30, 2014, the estimated workers' compensation liability totaled $17.8 billion. Now, while many of these benefits go to workers of a traditional working age, the U.S. Postal Service estimates that these higher than retirement benefits are resulting in an extra $37.8 million being paid out annually. That comes to nearly $400 million over the next 10 years, and that is just from one agency, the U.S. Postal Service. Estimates as to the cost to the taxpayer when all of the Federal agencies are included show that more than $1 billion will be spent over the next 10 years in extra workers' compensation payments for those who would unlikely be working throughout the Federal workforce. As my colleague, Senator Susan Collins from Maine, has been highlighting for years, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse and fraud. This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented in their own workers' compensation programs. Remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. That is the most important phrase here--``return to work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying alternative to the Federal retirement system. Yet, under the law, it is used for that, and it has cost the taxpayers a significant amount of their tax dollars for unnecessary payments. Let's not ignore ways we can improve our fiscal health and return our Federal programs, at a minimum, to their original intent. It is time we look at this policy and restore integrity to the FECA, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Today, I am adding another $1 billion to the taxpayer savings gauge for this week's waste of the week, and I look forward to discussing ways we can eradicate this waste from our Federal budget so that we can give hard-earned dollars back to the taxpayers--money that simply is not used properly and is labeled, of course, a waste of their money. So we have increased--we are approaching $50 billion, and we are shooting up to $100 billion by the end of this year. I am hoping we can go significantly past that. The next step, of course, is to take what we have identified and make sure that the law is changed, that it is reformed, and that we can proudly say to the taxpayer that we are doing our part in Washington. While the larger issues of debt and deficit need to be addressed and must be addressed, if we cannot come to consensus on that, at least we can come to consensus on eliminating these egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars. I yield the floor. I 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, as I have done for the last several weeks, I am back again for this week's ``Waste of the Week,'' a series of weekly speeches which points out how we can save taxpayer dollars by looking at waste, inefficiency, duplication, and other factors that are simply a waste of taxpayer money. Because this is April and because it is just a day after that fateful day in April, April 15--and we all know what that means--our waste of the week. Clearly, there is a growing consensus that our Tax Code is hopelessly complex, hopelessly burdensome, hopelessly anticompetitive, and needs comprehensive reform. That is not what we are here to talk about today, but I am a strong proponent of moving forward on that issue. It has been almost 30 years now--1986 was the last time a comprehensive reform was enacted by Congress. It turned out to be a tremendous stimulus to our economy. It created a boost in growth and boosted the economy in a way that provided us with the necessary funding without having to raise taxes, and, in fact, it lowered taxes because of its dynamic effect. That is an issue for another day. We will continue to try to pursue that. As a member of the Finance Committee, I know that is one of our major goals this year, as it is in the House of Representatives. Whether or not we are able to achieve our goal, we need to keep working on that. Today, I want to talk about the waste of the week by looking at the Tax Code and doing something I think would be a relatively easy and simple way to save the taxpayer some money. It involves a refundable child tax credit. The tax laws allow a refund which is not an offset of taxes owed but an actual direct payment that occurs if you have children. The refundable child tax credit is pretty straightforward. It qualifies a taxpayer for a credit of up to $1,000 per child depending on their income level. I am not here today to talk about the merits of that tax credit. I have supported it in the past, and I think it is something that ought to be given serious consideration in any kind of tax reform. Rather, I am here to discuss the cost to the American taxpayer due to the improper use of payments that are made to recipients who don't legally qualify for this refundable payment. According to the inspector general at the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service sent out at least $5.9 billion in improper payments in 2013-- payments that went to people who did not legally qualify for the benefit. Listen to what Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, said: The IRS has continually rated the risk of improper Additional Child Tax Credit payments as low. However, [our] assessment of the potential for improper payments in this program indicates that its improper payment rate is similar to that of the Earned Income Tax Credit. What is that rate? Nearly $6 billion and even more than that over a period of time. He goes on to say: It is imperative that the IRS take action to identify and address all of its programs that are at high risk for improper payments. Today, we are talking about one of those programs that Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General, defined and suggested we look at, and we will be looking at some others later. We are proposing a pretty easy fix, and I am supporting legislation that will require the submission of a valid Social Security number in order to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Requiring the submission of a valid Social Security number does not take the credit away from anyone who legally qualifies for this credit, but it does help ensure that only those who are truly legally qualified will benefit from the credit and will receive the payment. According to the most recent estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, this simple fix--simply requiring a valid Social Security number before a payment is given so we can weed out those improper payments--could save taxpayers $20 billion over a 10-year period. Compared to our multitrillion-dollar budget, $20 billion is a fairly small percentage, but compared to the way the taxpayer looks at this, $20 billion is a lot of change. It is a lot of money, and the savings from that can be used in any number of ways. Hopefully, it will be used to lower rates people have to pay in terms of the tax revenues they send to Washington, but if it is needed for essential programs, such as national defense or homeland security, and we can prove a need for that--we are constantly looking for ways to pay for things that are essential and need to be done--this is a perfect pay-for. So one way or another, it is a benefit to the American taxpayer. As we mark tax day this week, I wish we could say we are getting close to major tax reform, but since we are not, it is important that we continue to look at the Tax Code as well as other functions of government to determine how we can continue to save taxpayers money and how we can continue to identify unfair and complicated areas of our Tax Code. So with that we add to the gauge, which is growing every week that we identify a program. We started off at zero. Now we are approaching $50 billion worth of savings for the taxpayer. Our goal is $100 billion. We are going to keep doing this week after week, and we are going to keep adding money that is identified by our politically neutral accounting efforts. We are going to keep adding to this gauge until we reach our goal and hopefully go well beyond it. Mr. President, $20 billion is no small amount of change. It is being used improperly, and we can save that money. Stay tuned for next week's ``Waste of the Week.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on an amendment I have already submitted in the budget bill, but which also qualifies as a ``Waste of the Week.'' So I am going to do a two-for here. As I have said previously, I am coming to the floor every week to point out a waste of funds that, if eliminated and addressed, can save the taxpayer a lot of money. We have the thermometer growing in terms of the amount of money we have been able to offer--in terms of programs that simply are not working, can be reformed or changed or dropped, and save the taxpayer a lot of dollars. This week's waste addresses a well-intentioned Federal program that has moved away from its original intention of addressing an important social need. Officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, this program is more commonly known to the American public as food stamps. This program started under President Kennedy in the early 1960s as a temporary lifeline to those in need. Over time, the program grew. More than 30 years later, the Republican Congress, with a Democratic President--President Clinton--reformed welfare in 1996. During that reform, they made reforms to the SNAP program, or the food stamp program by adding some qualifying information. These reforms required that in order to qualify for food stamps, able-bodied adults had to register for work and accept a job if it was offered to them or go to a training program in order to qualify for food stamps. That was in the law. It was a welfare reform program that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, under a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, and history has shown that it worked. In 2009, our current President, President Obama, as part of the stimulus law, modified this program and put it in a position where it now is spending a lot more money, and removed essentially those requirements that were agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. As a journalist said: Today, SNAP is ``an open-ended income-supplement program that discourages work.'' According to the Wall Street Journal: Between 2008 and 2013, SNAP recipients grew by nearly 69%. By contrast, the poverty rate increased just 16.5% during the same period. With our economy recovering and more job opportunities becoming available, I have submitted this amendment to reinstate the requirements that was agreed to, as I said, in a bipartisan way under President Clinton. This legislation, if we make this reform, has been scored as saving at least $19 billion over a period of time--no small amount. It is good stewardship of our financial resources at a time when we need to have that stewardship because of the credit crunch we are now in. What we add here to the ever-growing thermometer that tries to take us to $100 billion of savings for taxpayers is a $19 billion chunk of savings that has been documented as achievable simply by returning the program to the place where it was implemented by both Republicans' and Democrats' support. In addition to the aforementioned amendment, I would also like to very briefly discuss two other important amendments I have submitted to the debate on the budget bill now before us. Amendment No. 595 Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 595, and that the amendment be made pending.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment, which I will briefly state the intent of here and which I have offered, along with Senator Warner, would help to strengthen our cyber security defenses by calling for increased sharing of information on cyber security attacks and threats. Millions of Americans have been subject and impacted by cyber attacks on companies and universities, to mention a few, and the Coats-Warner amendment would help to strengthen our defenses against cyber attacks by calling for greater information sharing, but in a way that protects individual privacy and civil liberties. Amendment No. 368 Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 368, and that the amendment be made pending.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment calls for States to have the flexibility to seek innovative Medicaid reforms that can both strengthen the program and make more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. My State of Indiana has been a leader in innovative Medicaid reforms and the advancement of consumer-driven health care under the leadership of our former Governor Mitch Daniels and our current Governor Mike Pence. I believe States should have the opportunity to innovate the Medicaid Program by using flexible, accountable financing mechanisms that are transparent and that hold States accountable for efficiency and quality health care systems. This program, carefully developed under two Governors, has now provided those in Indiana, of lower income, opportunities to enter into a program that uses innovative, cost-saving techniques, but provides quality health care with participation by our providers and the hospitals, with participation by our State, and with requirements that give the consumer more choices and provide for more quality of care. It is something that I think can serve as a model as we go forward trying to address our health care needs and reform of the Affordable Care Act or repeal with suggested substitutes that will achieve the goals of providing quality care to people who are of low income but at a much lower price and with much less regulation than is currently within the ACA. 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. Mr. President, it is my understanding that reserved time is now available for the Joint Economic Committee, particularly in regard to presenting the report which is part of the budgetary process, so I will go forward with that. It is an honor for me to serve as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. One of the main roles of that committee is to report to the Senate Budget Committee and to my colleagues in the Senate on the state of the economy, and that is why I am here today. Just last week, Dr. Jason Furman, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, appeared before the Joint Economic Committee to discuss this topic as well as to discuss the findings of the annual Economic Report of the President. Our committee is tasked with evaluating and responding to that President's Economic Report. Last week our committee released our findings and recommendations, and I am here today to present some of those findings. We found that despite improvements in economic conditions over the past year, our economy remains stuck in second gear. Let me discuss why we have concluded that. I often hear back home from Hoosiers--and I know my colleagues hear back home from people they represent--that we need to take action to grow the economy. I think it is safe to say that of course all of us in the Senate think the same way. But the age-old question in economics is this: How does a nation best create an environment for economic growth and raise living standards for its citizens? We are now nearly 6 years into this recovery. While there are many encouraging signs of economic improvement, particularly in the last several months, the recovery has been modest and there still are many Americans in need of and still seeking meaningful job opportunities. Since 1960, our Nation has experienced seven recessions and recoveries. The recoveries of the past 50 years provide comparative data to measure the progress of our current recovery. On the measures of GDP, jobs, and income growth, our current recovery ranks either dead last or second to last in all of those seven recoveries. Let me restate that. In the last 50 years we have had 7 major recessions. Following those recessions has been an economic recovery. As things get sorted out, the economy kicks back in. If we take all those seven and we average them out in terms of what the results were following the recession, we get certain numbers. What we have seen now in this last recession is performance far under the average--in fact, dead last--of those seven. I will give a couple of metrics here. Annual gross domestic product--the total of everything produced--has a value and grew 4 percent in the average post-1960 recovery, while this recovery has averaged just 2.3 percent of gross domestic product growth. So we are growing about half of the average of the previous recessions. Personal income rose an average of 15.3 percent in the past recoveries. During this recovery, personal income has reached only 7.1 percent growth--less than half of what the average is for the previous seven recoveries. At the same time, median household income has collapsed by $2,100 in real terms per family during this current recovery. And while the pace of job creation has picked up recently, there are still 5.5 million fewer private sector jobs in this recovery than the average of past recoveries. In addition, the labor force participation rate--the percentage of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for a job--has fallen to 35-year lows. What this means is reduction in the unemployment rate over the past year is at least partially the result of many Americans giving up on looking for work. This, contrary to what our President said in his State of the Union Address, is not something to be proud of. So we must ask ourselves: Why is this recovery so different? What does the future economic situation look like for the average American family? In our Republican Joint Economic Committee Response, we find that these questions are addressed partly by the historic factors identified in the President's report. For instance, there is mutual concern about the labor market scars that remain in the aftermath of the recent recession, as well as the challenges to restoring a more productive and participatory workforce. Where we differ with the President is on how to best address these problems and what policies we can offer that will return us to, at a minimum, the average of past recoveries. We are not asking for the Moon here. Although we would like to see growth exceed the average of the past, we are simply saying: What policies do we need to enact just to get back to the average recovery? And we are half of that, as I said. We differ with the President on how best to address these problems and what policies we can offer that will return us, at a minimum, to the average of past recoveries. Unfortunately, we have found that many of the recommendations put forth in the President's report would not deliver the benefits the administration projects. For instance, the administration's proposal to increase the minimum wage would result in reduced job opportunities. That has been documented over and over in testimony before our committee by analysts and economists who have looked at this. It freezes out those seeking entry-level jobs--a start, a foot in the door, the ability to show you can come to work and do a good day's work, arrive on time and don't leave before your time ends. You could be a productive person, and up the ladder they go. That entry level is killed when we raise the minimum wage beyond what the market calls for. We end up losing a lot of small businesses that provide those entry-level jobs, or end up hiring on a part-time basis to avoid that result. Additionally, the economic report of the President insufficiently addresses the challenges we face in terms of improving the American economy, improving economic mobility, preparing students in the workforce, enacting progrowth policies, and addressing our long-term fiscal challenges. Allow me, if I could, to discuss these items in greater detail. Let's look at economic mobility. For example, the Obama administration continues to press income inequality as an issue, when it would be better to focus on policies that improve economic mobility. Economic mobility is far more important for Americans as they move through different stages of life--from making less income after graduation, to starting the process of building a career, building a resume, to building up earnings through a career experience, and establishing families, to accumulate savings for retirement, and other goals that all of us have gone through and many are going through and many hope to go through as they look forward to meaningful work in the future. Despite good intentions, President Obama continues to pursue policies that impede job growth and real income growth. This restrains economic mobility. Nearly 6 years now into the current recovery, Americans are only just beginning to see signs of significant income growth--and income growth feeds into upward economic mobility. My hope and our hope is this growth will continue to strengthen in the coming years. But we need a change of policies from this administration if this is going to happen. Let's look at education reform. We also differ with the President in the area of education reform. It is becoming increasingly clear that traditional solutions no longer work in today's labor market. The connection between education and jobs is fractured, and repairing this connection requires collaboration with employers who know what skills their workers need. Education remains an area ripe for reform, yet the Obama administration has preferred to promote the idea of making community college free rather than focus on the existing education deficits experienced by so many students across the country. Many low-income Americans are already able to receive a community college education for free if they are eligible for Pell grants. But the real question here is: What kind of curriculum will they be taking as they enter the education process? To simply go into a system that is not coordinating and cooperating with the private industry in terms of the skills needed for them to grow and to join that particular means of production is sadly lacking in the President's proposals. Today, many of the classes offered at community colleges are remedial. They are compensating for deficits in education at the high school level. Many students find themselves unprepared for even the most basic postsecondary courses at the community college and university levels, let alone for skilled jobs that offer good pay. Until we address this fundamental foundational underpinning in terms of how to receive the right education, we have to address these questions rather than just simply say: Everybody go; don't worry, the taxpayer will pay for your tuition; take whatever courses you want. That simply is not the model. In Indiana, we have a consolidated model now, working with private industry and our 2-year colleges, which is producing terrific results because we are matching the skills needed with the curriculum and teaching that provides those needs. For these students, finding a good job remains a challenge, as does our ability to address those in this category who have given up looking for a job. That takes us to the labor participation rate. The labor force participation rate for those age 20 to 29 is more than 4 percent lower now than in 2007. And the lower that goes, the easier it is to achieve an unemployment number that sounds good but really is false because the factor of labor participation is skewing the results. Furthermore, for those who find a job in that 20-to-29 category, the Federal Reserve board survey of young workers reveals that only 42 percent of those surveyed reported having a job that is closely related to their field of study. Students' time and resources need to be better invested so they can enter the workforce truly equipped, and without needless delay and countless dollars spent on a degree that leaves them unemployed or jobless. This is a major challenge to our education system, and the President's education proposals fall far short of the reforms needed to address these challenges. Let's look at growth and productivity--absolutely essential if we are going to have a growing economy and provide more jobs for more people. As it stands, the United States remains one of the most productive economies in the world. We can treasure that. We can celebrate that. However, much concern remains about whether America will be able to sustain that productivity of which it proved capable over the last half century, but there is a real question today as to whether that can be sustained. Business creation, entrepreneurship, and technological innovations have slowed over the past decade, alarmingly. If these trends prove to be more than temporary, then they will have negative consequences for America's standard of living. Productivity and labor force participation growth alone cannot address the Federal spending problems that have been years in the making. It appears the administration has not stopped to consider the effects of existing regulations and government policies. ObamaCare's effects on labor force participation and hours worked continue to drive down productivity. Economist Casey Mulligan estimates that, if fully implemented, by 2017 ObamaCare's long-term effect will translate to roughly 3 percent less in weekly employment--3 percent fewer total hours worked, and 2 percent less in labor income. That is not how to boost productivity. That is a killer of increase in productivity. Nonetheless, the Obama administration prefers to add more spending programs to the existing structure in an attempt to counterbalance the current disincentives to work. In contrast, we--Republicans on the committee--believe aggressive action on progrowth policies will improve the future economic situation of American families. As we detail our report to Congress, there are three areas where immediate opportunity to kick-start our economy and provide for the sustained growth needed to address the current fiscal and economic growth challenges we face that need to be implemented--one, comprehensive tax reform; two, implementation of foreign trade agreements; and three, regulatory relief. Let's take those three in a little deeper discussion. Tax reform. The need for comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform could not be clearer. There is admission on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber--the Republicans and the Democrats--that we have gone far too long in terms of dealing with tax reform of our current taxation system. The Administration and Members of Congress in both parties agreed that it's broken. It is loaded with so many exemptions, exclusions, subsidies, credits, special interest provisions, rules and regulations, it is incomprehensible to fathom the complexity of this current system. It is hurting our economy. For example, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world. If American businesses are going to be able to compete in a global market, it has to be significantly lower. There is consent on this. The President has acknowledged that this is needed and that this is the case. Yet we see little if any policy coming forward-- direct policy--from the White House and from our Democratic friends as to whether we should go forward. I am hopeful that the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the Finance Committee in the Senate, of which I am a Member, will take this seriously and will address this issue in a comprehensive way. Unfortunately, the President's framework may not lead to the desired goals of productivity and other economic gains because with a tax code of 4 million words and compliance costs to American families and businesses equaling $168 billion a year, it is not surprising that 9 out of 10 Americans turn to a paid preparer or computer software to calculate their tax burden. Six billion hours are spent every year by Americans simply trying to figure out their tax return or get their tax return taken care of, and an extraordinary amount of money is spent on having someone else prepare that return because it is simply incomprehensible for most Americans to address. Progrowth tax reform would simplify the Tax Code for individuals and families, reduce the corporate rate, lower individual rates paid by small businesses, and make our individual tax system more competitive in the global market. By comparison, the Administration's suggested 28 percent corporate tax rate and hybrid territorial and worldwide tax system would still place the United States among the highest global tax rates and would still continue to put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Let's look at trade. Another area of agreement between Congress and the administration, so-called, is the pursuit of more trade opportunities. President Obama's National Export Initiative aimed to increase the level of exports to $3.14 trillion before 2015 in order to support up to 2 million jobs, but it fell far short of that goal. The opportunity to improve GDP growth is available now, pending the administration's efforts to secure trade promotion authority to finalize new trade agreements. During the State of the Union Address, one of the few topics that brought Republicans to their feet, cheering in support, was the President's call for trade promotion authority. Yet, it appears--and I remain concerned--that the President and the administration are not really working hard enough and putting the pressure on their own party Members to secure the necessary support of Congress to achieve this much needed result. The President should fully engage with Congress to ensure passage of trade promotion authority. This is a necessary policy if we are to get the kind of economic growth we need. With these trade agreements, we can expand market access for American goods and services and improve the economic well-being of Americans and of citizens in our trade partner countries. Regulatory burden. We have to stem the rising tide of regulatory redtape. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, the cost of complying with Federal regulations exceeds $1.75 trillion every year for U.S. businesses, and it disproportionately affects small businesses. This amounts to more than $10,500 per American worker. Furthermore, the administration has launched an aggressive assault on fossil fuels and the low-cost electricity they provide. In addition to the EPA's harmful carbon regulations, the administration has unleashed more than a dozen rules aimed at eliminating coal-fired plants in the United States. We cannot neglect the costs and effects of new major regulations under ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank that continue to subdue business investment and job growth. Taken individually, each burdensome regulation increases costs to American families and slows economic growth. Taken collectively, these regulations hang as a giant albatross around the necks of working people and American businesses, both large and small. To reduce excessive regulations, Federal agencies need to review and remove outdated and ineffective rules and should more fully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed rule. I would like to turn now to the long-term effects and fiscal health that is a challenge to all, each and every one of us. I have spoken at some length about this recent recovery and our report's findings. In addition to working to improve the recovery in the short term, we must also address the greatest threat to a successful economic America--our long-term fiscal health. Earlier this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its updated budget and economic outlook for the next decade. The report warned that under current law, if we just stay where we are and don't make adjustments, ``large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including increasing federal spending for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Yellen said essentially the same thing when she appeared last year before the Joint Economic Committee. Her answer highlighted why the long-term deficits Washington currently is projected to run must be addressed. I put that question to Chairman Yellen, Chairman of the Fed, and this was her answer: There is more work to do to put fiscal policy on a sustainable course... Progress has been made over the last several years in bringing down deficits in the short term, but [through] a combination of demographics, the structure of entitlement programs, and historic trends in health-care costs, we can see that, over the long term, deficits will rise to unsustainable levels relative to the economy. With these comments, the Fed Chairwoman joined a long list of academics, economists, and business leaders who have all stated the obvious: Unless the United States makes politically difficult but absolutely necessary spending choices in the near term, eventually we are going to face a debt-induced crisis in the future. It is only a matter of time. The clock is running down. We continue to postpone the ever-more-necessary policy changes that will help us avoid the coming fiscal crisis. It is there for everybody to see. That clock has been running now for tens of years. Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents have watched this grow, the deficit spending and national debt--plunge into national debt at a staggering rate. The consequences will come home to roost, and they will affect not only our own generation but in particular our children's generation and our grandchildren's generation and generations to come if we don't address this. In fact, if interest rates were not artificially held down by the Fed at historically low levels, we might already be facing our day of reckoning. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even a 1 percentage point increase in interest rates would add $1.7 trillion to the deficits of the United States over a 10-year period of time. That is just a 1-percent increase in interest rates. If we go back to average, we will be looking at a 3-percent or 4-percent or maybe even a 5-percent interest rate level. Each one would cost us $1.7 trillion over a 10-year period of time. That new debt would occur without any changes in spending or taxing; interest rates alone would simply drive our debt out of control. It is a ticking time bomb, a fiscal ticking time bomb that must be addressed. While the administration has taken credit for the current reduction in our annual deficit, overall debt has increased dramatically under President Obama--from $10.6 trillion to almost $18.2 trillion just during his term of office. And they brag about making progress? Yes, the deficit is smaller than it was in the early years of the Obama administration, but it is still a deficit of half a trillion dollars a year, and it is going to spike dramatically within 2 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. What a bag of misery turned over to the next President. In addition, the reduction in our budget deficits is only temporary, as I just said, because the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office is that this will spike in 2017 and publicly held debt as a percent of GDP will continue to rise in the second half of the coming decade. Yet, the CBO's projections of deficits and publicly held debt over the next decade does not tell the whole story. The debt will continue to climb to unsustainable levels over the next three decades-- 30 years of climbing into even more debt. By the end of that time, we will owe our creditors more than our entire economy produces in 1 year. Let me say that again. At the end of that period--the next three decades--we will owe our creditors more than our entire economy is worth. What a gift to our children. Thanks a lot. Thanks for ignoring doing what you needed to do. You saw it coming. You talked about it on the floor of the Senate. Everybody saw what was happening, and no one had the will to stand up or too few had the will to stand up and do something about it. It is reckless policy. It is dangerous. We have an obligation to the American people. We have a moral obligation to our future children and grandchildren to address this and to act responsibly. There have been several bipartisan attempts, both in Congress and by outside groups, to address this ticking time bomb. Groups such as Fix the Debt, the Business Roundtable, the Domenici-Rivlin effort at the Bipartisan Policy Center--all tried to develop solutions and present them. They did present them to us, and it is clear for everyone to see. Official government efforts were undertaken--Simpson-Bowles, the Gang of 6, the supercommittee that resulted from the Budget Control Act, and the dinner club of Senators, which I participated in, that met directly with the President and his senior advisers. Unfortunately, all of these efforts, all of the effort put into this, all of the alarms that were ringing--all of this failed to reach agreement. I am particularly disappointed with the failure of the final effort, which began with Senators and the White House seeking to go big and ultimately got to the point where it was hardly worth putting anything in place. Even when we took the President's own recommendations and sent them to him for approval, they were rejected. Despite the inability to reach agreements in the past, we must not give up, my colleagues. We must not give up. We must continue to focus on this greatest fiscal threat perhaps in the history of our country. It is something we have a moral responsibility to tackle, a moral responsibility to put our future careers in jeopardy by making the right choices. You know what, I think if we did that, the American people are wise enough to know now that that would be rewarded rather than condemned, that we would receive support for our future interest in elected office rather than rejection. The country understands maybe more--or at least reacts to maybe more than we in this body do because year after year after year we continue to fail to do what we all know we need to do. Despite the inability to reach agreements in the past, as I said, we should not give up. The administration and the Congress must make tough fiscal choices now so future generations will have an opportunity to reach their potential and not be saddled with an even higher burden of debt. We must make reforms to our mandatory spending programs to tackle out-of-control Federal spending. Congress should also pass sensible policies that will help create jobs and grow the economy. This is our priority and this is what need to do. I will conclude by talking about the Republican budget plan that we have begun to debate and will be debating this week and offering amendments and ultimately voting by the end of the week. We know that job creators and future entrepreneurs see today's large debt levels as tomorrow's likely tax hikes, interest rate increases, and inflationary pressures. So we must lift the cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over our economy. This is the first budget we have debated on the Senate floor in 2 years. This is a budget plan that is so vital to the future of our economy and the future of America. We have lacked such focused direction in the form of a budget over the past several years and that has hurt Americans. Americans need to know what is coming and what to expect. We need to move off of the word ``certainty'' so that business owners, American families, and everyone engaged in this economy knows what the rules are, knows what is coming, and has a clear picture of where we stand even if there are some areas that they are in disagreement with. They need to know the Federal Government is carefully managing its spending and revenues. Every American family and business must have a budget and live within their means, and it is about time Washington does the same. I am pleased to be here talking about this Republican budget resolution that was led by the Senator from Wyoming, and many of us participated. I am not on that committee, but I commend them for the work they have done in bringing forth a budget for us to talk about, debate, amend, pass, and then live by. Certainly no budget is perfect. This budget takes several important steps to putting our country back on the right fiscal track. Most importantly, this budget resolution balances the budget over 10 years. We must stop spending more than we take in. We must move toward a balanced budget. I have long been a proponent of a constitutional amendment to require us to do this, as is done in many of our States. We have to live up to the responsibilities of our oath to the Constitution and to not spend more than we take in. We do that in Indiana, and we have a successful economy and a successful legislature that has made that the case, but it is severely and sorely lacking here in Washington. In contrast to the Republican budget, the President's budget does not come close to balancing the budget. In fact, for all of the administration's praise of the short-term reductions in the annual deficit, the President's budget predicts increases in deficits starting in 2018--yes, it is going to be dumped in somebody else's lap--and an $800 billion deficit in 2025. Our Republican budget helps address the issue of underfunding the Department of Defense. It boosts defense spending by a necessary amount of money above the President's request because, along with the debt bomb, we have a terrorist bomb--potentially marrying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction--and a strong America and strong military are absolutely necessary to address the threats we see burgeoning all over the world today. Our budget addresses this specific question and strengthens our national defense. It helps preserve our safety net programs. It does not change Social Security, yet it will benefit Social Security by shoring up our broader finances and achieving stronger economic growth and increased employment. In addition, the budget extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by calling for the same level of Medicare savings as called for by the President. Let me be clear. Our budget does not call for the same policies as the President. We would instead achieve these savings through policies based on free-market principles. The budget also seeks to improve the Medicaid Program by increasing State flexibility, and it seeks to help economic growth by promoting several progrowth policies, including tax reform, reducing the impact of Federal regulations, promoting free trade, investing in infrastructure, and enhancing U.S. energy security. Finally, the Republican budget provides the means for addressing the flawed, confusing, distorted, tax-laden policy of ObamaCare. The repeal of ObamaCare provides flexibility to replace this disastrous law with health care solutions that bring down the cost of care and protect the vulnerable. I will conclude by saying and reiterating what this Senate Republican budget resolution accomplishes. It balances the budget in 10 years, ensures flexibility for funding national defense, provides repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, protects Americans from new tax hikes, preserves Social Security, extends Medicare trust fund solvency, improves Medicaid, supports stronger economic growth, and enhances U.S. energy security. I am proud my Senate colleagues have drafted a plan to return our spending to a sustainable path toward a balanced budget, and I am hopeful this is the beginning of responsible action and look forward to debating and passing the Republican budget this week. Again, I commend the chairman and his committee for bringing forth a budget that is sorely needed and will give Americans a clear picture of a different path than this administration has proposed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I did not come down to speak on this particular bill. I am back for week No. 4 of waste of the week. In recent weeks, I have highlighted what I describe as excess spending of taxpayer dollars. We have talked about double dipping in unemployment insurance, where if we could close this loophole, we could save the taxpayer $5.7 billion in savings. We have also talked about duplication in Federal economic development programs. There are 50-some programs that provide for workforce training spread among a number of agencies. Surely we can reduce that number significantly. And if we could do so, we could save the taxpayer $200 million. And last week--somewhat tongue in cheek, nevertheless not small change--I talked about a $387,000 grant issued by the National Institutes of Health in which 18 New Zealand white rabbits were given, four times a day, 30-minute massages to determine whether they would be relieved of some soreness after they were given some physical exercise. Then four massages a day, 30 minutes apiece, costing $387,000, to prove that a massage helped to make them feel better or removed some of those aches and pains. I think we could have asked any athlete from any college. As we are moving into college basketball's March Madness and Final Four that we all engage in at this time of year, we could ask any college athlete, or any person for that matter who is doing work in the yard: Do you think 4 30-minute massages a day would help you feel a little better and help you with some of those aches and pains? Do we need to spend $387,000 of taxpayer dollars in order to prove this and give rabbits massages? So up we go with the chart. Waste of the week. This is week No. 4, and I would like to talk about a so-called bonus that has been given by our Federal Government that is quite egregious. I am sure many look forward to a potential bonus at the end of the year--though it doesn't apply in our business here. A bonus sounds like something that comes along with something that was earned, but what if it was a bonus you didn't earn? Is it still a bonus or does it become fraud? Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen recently confirmed to the Senate that unless action is taken, an amnesty bonus would be available to millions who have broken our immigration laws. All of this stems from the President's announcement in November of 2014 to grant 3 years of tentative legal status to as many as 4 million individuals who crossed America's borders into this country illegally. Fortunately, President Obama's Executive amnesty has been temporarily blocked by a Federal court. Hopefully, that blockage will survive all legal challenges to undo it. But if this amnesty plan moves forward, 4 million illegal individuals will be granted Social Security numbers. Why does this matter? Well, when you are granted a Social Security number, it triggers certain benefits, including eligibility for the earned income tax credit for up to 3 prior years in future tax filing years. The earned income tax credit is a benefit for working people who have low to moderate income. It is an incentive and a reward for those who choose to work, and it does help to reduce the number of those who are dependent on government welfare programs. It allows some individuals to receive payments from the U.S. Treasury just by filing a tax return. It reduces the amount of tax an individual owes and it may also provide a tax refund. Why is this issue qualified as waste of the week? Since the President is trying to legalize an additional 4 million individuals, if his action is upheld by the court, 4 million people will now have retroactive access to this benefit and taxpayers foot the bill for these 4 million illegal immigrants who will be in a position to earn this tax credit. The Joint Committee on Taxation says this so-called amnesty bonus for those who have come into our country illegally will drain about $2.1 billion from the United States Treasury. I am for legal immigration. The United States has a rich history as a destination where people from all over the world can come to make a better life for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. As a matter of fact, I am the son of an immigrant. My mother came here with her family, and it has been the narrative of our family. Legal immigration is what has made America the great prosperous country it is today. But we also are a nation of laws, and Congress should help ensure that legal immigrants to our country can benefit from the opportunities they need to succeed, but that doesn't include rewarding those who are gaming our immigration system to receive benefits they do not legally qualify for. To address this matter, I have joined with Senator Grassley and several other of my colleagues to introduce legislation that would correct this issue. If we can correct this issue, we will save the taxpayers an estimated $2.1 billion in future spending. So up we go with the thermometer here, and we will be adding another $2.1 billion to the money that can be saved our taxpayers by eliminating duplication, by pursuing awards that are not legally given, by looking at the way the Federal Government wastes money by giving rabbits back rubs, and we are going to continue to fill this up until we hopefully reach the $100 billion goal. That is not small change. I continue to hear from Hoosiers and others who write and say: Yes, we haven't been able to address the big issues of debt and deficit, but we can go after government waste. And those who say we can't afford to cut spending a nickel because we have cut so much so far clearly have not paid attention to the billions of dollars that can be saved the taxpayers simply by addressing the waste and illegal use of the taxpayer money. I look forward to sharing some more of these in coming weeks, and I thank the sponsor of the bill here for giving me the time to come down and add another waste of the week to the list climbing toward our goal of $100 billion in savings for the taxpayer, who is overtaxed already. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to discuss what many believe is the most dangerous threat to our national security, and that is a nuclear Iran. Over the past few weeks, there have been a lot of discussions about the Obama administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran and what the role of Congress should be. I believe the debate this past week in Congress over how to best address this issue has distracted us from what I believe are the two key objectives in our effort to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability. First, Iran must be prevented from getting the bomb, and second, we in the Senate must decide the best way to guarantee that result. For the past 10 years, I have been working hard to find the most acceptable and best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. Note that word ``capability.'' For me, it has long been not enough to just announce that we must not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I am determined that Iran must not get the technical capability to manufacture such a weapon because a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is as dangerous as a nuclear-armed Iran because it throws up a cloud of ambiguity about its formal intentions. There are many in the policy communities who find some mistaken sense of comfort from the intelligence agencies' current view that Iran has not yet made a formal decision to develop a nuclear weapon. This is a delusion. Iran's industrial-strength uranium enrichment enterprise has gone from 600 centrifuges 6 years ago when the international community first expressed alarm to 19,000 today. We know the Ayatollah is on a quest for 190,000 centrifuges as soon as international constraints are removed. Let's state the obvious: The Iranian pursuit of uranium enrichment is not being created to manufacture medical isotopes and reactor fuel for producing electricity; its purpose is to produce nuclear bombs. Throughout my many years of involvement on this issue--as cochair of the task force at the Bipartisan Policy Center along with former Senator Chuck Robb and a distinguished panel of experts and in the last 4 years here in the Senate--I have called for using the full range of tools to prevent Iran from reaching its nuclear goal. These include negotiations coupled with ever-increasing sanctions pressure and a credible threat of the use of military force if the negotiations and sanctions fail to lead to Iran's commitment to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. This continues to be my view. I do believe in diplomacy. I would very much like to see effective negotiations take place, led by insightful diplomats, focused on the right results. I would like to see that lead to a settlement that brings security and confidence. But we have every reason to fear this is not now happening. I don't want to destroy the negotiations track, but I do want to refocus it with the firm backing it requires to achieve the goal we need to reach. I don't want to demand everything from the Iranians, but I do want to require enough to guarantee they give up on their nuclear weapons ambitions. I don't want to torpedo the administration's diplomatic efforts, but I do want to require that Congress have the final say on whether the results of negotiations are acceptable and achieve the goals of preventing Iran's nuclear weapons capability. For me and I trust for the Senate, this is our most important task of the moment--to force the President to accept a congressional role. He has said repeatedly that he will deny us that role when it comes to approving any agreement. We must not let that happen. The reason I did not sign the open letter to Iran is not because I disagreed with the goals of the letter. All Senate Republicans and, I believe, many Senate Democrats, are in agreement on the overall objective of avoiding a bad deal with Iran. But the strategy we need to accomplish this essential goal is now in question, and we are divided now in a way that makes this goal harder to achieve. There are two bills pending that would require the President to present any Iran deal to us for review and action, and this is the course I believe we should take. One, which I cosponsored, has been introduced by both Senators Kirk and Menendez--a bipartisan effort. The other, coauthored by Senators Corker and Menendez--also bipartisan--I also support. The latter bill, which would require Congress to approve any deal with Iran, is very close to achieving the support of 67 or more Senators needed to overturn President Obama's promised veto of any legislation on this topic. Lack of bipartisan consensus at this moment on this issue is likely to lead to a fatally flawed deal that destroys more than a decade of effort to bring Iran to cease its goal of nuclear weapons capability. We all know now that the Obama administration abandoned the core objectives at the very outset, even before these talks began. Four U.N. Security Council resolutions; frequent and constant demands coming from this Chamber; four Presidents--two Republicans and two Democrats--saying a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable; the firm position of AIPAC and other friends of Israel--all stated the necessity that Iran give up and shut down all its uranium-enriching centrifuges. Yet this goal was jettisoned before the talks even started. The Obama administration spokesmen, including Secretary Kerry himself, have explained repeatedly that it was just too hard to achieve. We must be more realistic, we are told. The Iranians, we are told, can never be expected to agree to the demands laid down years ago by the Security Council. That was then, they said. This is now. Everything has changed. We have to set that goal aside, and we have to reach some reasonable agreement with a reasonable process with a reasonable country. The word we need to question there is ``reasonable.'' Madam President, it appears my time is running out, but I notice that no other Member is here to speak, so I ask unanimous consent to speak for just 3 more minutes.