Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I have been sitting here listening to the respect and the emotion of people recognizing the service of Tom Coburn. I don't have a prepared speech, but I second everything that has been said about Tom. My emotions well up in me when I think about Tom. Tom exhibits the conviction that I wish I had more of, Tom exhibits the commitment I wish I had more of, and he exhibits the courage I wish I had more of. I remember my very dear friend Chuck Olson made this statement: Lord, show me the kind of person You would like me to be and give me the strength to be that person. I feel like God has given a gift to the Senate, and certainly a gift to me, by simply saying, take a look at Tom Coburn. Look at the qualities he exhibits and his commitment to faith. He is a pretty good model to follow. Thank you, Tom.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I wish to make some remarks about the Senator from Louisiana. I had the pleasure of serving as ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, and Mary Landrieu was the chairman. I wasn't sure about what to expect when I joined that committee. I knew of Mary's passion and her persuasion, which is given in a gentle but effective way. She reaches out. I thought, she is going to convince me out of just about everything. I will not be able to hold my own with her, but she was so gracious in terms of working together with me as we worked through some very tough issues. She was a knowledgeable and effective leader. She couldn't ask enough questions, couldn't gain enough information, making wise decisions, given the limitations that we had relative to appropriations and given the process that, unfortunately, was not the way the Appropriations Committee should go forward. Nevertheless, working together on that and on a whole number of issues turned out to be a very pleasant experience because of the nature of the leader of the committee and their willingness to work together. You get to learn something about someone when you spend 3 days trekking along the southern border on the immigration issue. We climbed into tunnels, driving along fences, talking to Border Patrol agents, looking at the enormous channels that exist relative to that border and our Border Patrol people and immigration control people. Both of us were right there in blue jeans and tennis shoes in hot weather, and learning firsthand the challenges this country faces relative to dealing with immigration. Her passion for children and her State has been talked about. I think the word that best describes Mary is passion. She has passion for the engagement in anything that she engages in and doing it in a way that is relentless and reaches results. I think it is a great tribute to her character and to the kind of person she is. One thing we will not be able to do is meet together somewhere in Russia. I have been banned from Russia and Mary has been banned from Russia. I was banned because I took significant exception to the Russian takeover of Crimea and its activities in Ukraine. I was surprised by that. Mary was banned for an unnecessary reason, and that was trying to help Russian children who were trying to find adoptive parents. Obviously she was successful, and obviously she was as relentless there as she was on all the other issues because Russia saw that as a threat. Here is someone reaching out for all the right reasons and doing something for all the right reasons--passion for children and finding them a home. I wish Mary the very best going forward in her next chapter of life. I can testify to you from personal experience that there is life after Congress, and it can be a pleasant life. Knowing you, you will be engaged in something very significant--whether for your State or your country. Your life of service, and your family's life of service, is well recognized. So I wish the Senator from Louisiana the very best as she goes forward. It has been a pleasure working with her.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am a bit out of order here. I was waiting for some of my colleagues who have spent a bit more time here than I to speak, but I wanted to take this opportunity to add my sincere thanks to Saxby Chambliss for the kind of person he is and the kind of leadership he has provided and the kind of example he has set during his time in Congress and in the Senate. I was privileged to be able to come back to the Senate and join the group of people who shared the same deep concerns I had shared. The reason I did come back was due to the threats to our country from abroad and the fiscal plunge into debt that is going to affect our country dramatically in the future if we don't deal with it. But having the privilege of being with the people who have set such an example has been a great privilege for me. If I were a producer and director of a movie I was going to have come out about the Senate, I would want Saxby to be the leading man. First of all, he looks like a Senator, and he has that southern calm presence that most of us envy and he just seems to fit the profile. The next choice would have to be for the leading lady, and you couldn't find a more gracious, beautiful, supportive leading lady than Julianne Chambliss. Together, they just make a stunning couple. I have had the privilege of traveling with them and seeing them in different places and in different situations, and what a tremendous gift it is to be with the both of them. So the Senate and many of us here will dearly miss Saxby Chambliss. He comes from a line of distinguished Senators representing the State of Georgia, and as Senator Burr said, he fits right into that long list of people whose tenure here has been remembered for decades and will continue to be remembered for decades. His commitment to our men and women in uniform, his service to the agriculture community but particularly, in my experience, his leadership of the Intelligence Committee has been leadership this country has needed in a time of dire circumstances. His work with Chairman Feinstein in dealing with the daily pressures and weight of responsibility that falls on the leadership--and all of us who serve on the committee but particularly the leadership of the Intelligence Committee--has probably been as great in the last several years as any time in our history. Very difficult decisions have had to be made. I know I sometimes stagger out of that committee thinking, this is more than I can get my mind around. This is more than I can get my arms around in terms of how do we deal with some of these threats and some of these challenges that have popped up all over the world in various manifestations. Yet the solid leadership on the Republican side with Saxby Chambliss has united us in a way that has forged a real bond and a desire to work in a nonpartisan basis to live up to our responsibility to provide oversight for the intelligence community and to be a part of helping make those decisions that are so important and so formative in terms of how we deal with these particular issues. So I thank Saxby for the person he has been, the person he is, and the person he will continue to be, for the example he has set, for his friendship, and for his extraordinary leadership. I know the refrigerator will be stocked with Coca Cola, there will be Georgia peanuts in his pocket, maybe a little bit of bourbon in a drawer somewhere, and he will have a tee time at Augusta just about any time he wants. I wish him the very best as he and Julianne go forward with their life. He has left his mark here and certainly he has left his mark on me.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, it is widely anticipated that the President intends to nominate Dr. Ashton Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense, perhaps as early as tomorrow, and I welcome that nomination. Should Dr. Carter take over the helm at the Defense Department, it would coincide with an ominous development on a national security issue that he and I have dealt with together in the past, and that issue is the growing danger that Iran will soon be able to develop nuclear weapons and the inability of prolonged negotiations with Iran to prevent them from doing so. In 2008 Ash Carter and I participated in coauthoring a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center entitled ``Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.'' In that report we acknowledged that Iran's nuclear program would pose ``the most significant strategic threat to the United States during the next administration.'' That group, which was cochaired by former Senator Chuck Robb and myself, included many with long and well-respected credentials on foreign policy matters. That report also emphasized what was at stake and what the consequences would be if Iran was allowed to achieve nuclear weapons capability. I want to quote from what we said and concluded. A nuclear-ready or nuclear-armed Islamic Republic ruled by the clerical regime could threaten the Persian Gulf region and its vast energy resources, spark nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, inject additional volatility into global energy markets, embolden extremists in the region and destabilize states such as Saudi Arabia and others in the region, provide nuclear technology to other radical regimes and terrorists . . . and seek to make good on its threats to eradicate Israel. That is why this threat has been labeled by most in the intelligence community, if not all, as the most significant long-term threat to the United States. This was written in 2008. Now, 6 years later into this current administration, we can see the truth of those judgments. Unfortunately, what we have also seen is that this administration has not dealt effectively with this growing threat. In our Bipartisan Policy Center report Ash Carter and I called for direct negotiations with Iran, but on the condition that these negotiations were backed by strong economic sanctions and the threat of military force as a last resort if all other efforts failed to achieve the stated goal of preventing Iran from attaining the capability of producing nuclear weapons. We did not come to this conclusion easily. We debated it for months. We debated each phase of the potential negotiation with Iran through diplomacy, through the imposition of sanctions, through the potential threat of military force, and ultimately the need to use military force if we could not achieve the desired objective. We obviously made that the last resort, and only if all other efforts failed. As I said, it was written in 2008. Most relevant at this moment was our insistence--and I quote from the report again--``that any U.S.-Iranian talks will not be open-ended, but will be limited to a predetermined time period so that Tehran does not try to `run out the clock.' '' Our deepest concern with the failure to move forward with an ever- ratcheting and tightening combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and threat of force was that Iran would run out the clock, and in the meantime, continue to spin the centrifuges and add to those methods which were producing the ability for them to obtain nuclear weapons capability. Now, more than 6 years later, after prolonged negotiations and yet another extension of talks without achieving the stated goal of ending the regime's quest, it is time to reassess where we currently stand. President Obama is not only ignoring the clear and present danger of Iranian ambitions, he is abetting those ambitions by surrendering key positions first and then pursuing negotiations that confirm our weakness. For 8 years U.S. policy, backed by six United Nations Security Council resolutions, insisted that Iran abandon its program to enrich uranium because of the mortal danger that it would arm itself with nuclear weapons. That policy was discarded virtually at the start of the negotiations with Iran--a year and a half or so ago--indeed, before the negotiations began. Although the subjects of uranium enrichment, weapons programs, inspections, and nuclear power are highly complex and the discussions have been lengthy, they all lead now to a very simple question: How much ability will Iran have to enrich uranium and how many centrifuges will it be permitted to operate in reaching its goal? When the U.N. Security Council passed its first resolution demanding that Iran cease enriching uranium, Iran had 800 centrifuges doing that illegal work. Today, after 2 years of direct negotiations on this specific issue, Iran has 19,000 centrifuges. I will repeat that: After 2 years of direct negotiations, Iran has moved from 800 centrifuges to 19,000 centrifuges. Any negotiated agreement that gives Iran the ability to retain so much uranium capability is completely unacceptable, and the Senate should prevent such failure from being ratified or otherwise accepted by this Congress. When it comes to negotiation strategy, we should learn from past failures. This is not the first time we have been through something like this. An instructional example comes from our experience with North Korea. When I first served in the Senate, we were dealing with this very subject. Starting with the so-called ``Agreed Framework'' in 1994, we tried to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem by cycles of negotiations salted with incentives. Does that sound familiar? At various times we have relieved international economic sanctions pressure in return for promises of improved behavior from the North Koreans. As we pursued inconsistent and diffident strategies, the North Koreans responded with bouts of hostility, cynical manipulation, and threats. They have repeatedly tested missiles with nuclear capability, revealed a vast new uranium enrichment facility previously undetected by the International Atomic Energy Association and our own services, tested nuclear weapons, intimidated and threatened their neighbors, and continued to build their nuclear weapons arsenal. I distinctly remember being on this floor and questioning our ability to verify that the Koreans would live up to what they promised to do, and that was to not develop nuclear weapon capability. Oh, we have this all wired in. We have their promise. We have provided aid to them in the nature of food and in the nature of a number of financial incentives, and we have the verification procedures in place. We know that none of that worked. We know we were rope-a-doped by the North Koreans, just as we are being rope-a-doped by the Iranians. We have a precedent on which we ought to be basing our decisions in terms of how we go forward. Maintaining the status quo is not the way to diffuse a critical threat to our national security. This is a view, by the way, that Ash Carter has expressed emphatically and one of the major reasons why I will so strongly urge for his confirmation to be Secretary of Defense. To the contrary, Secretary Kerry, who energetically leads the current negotiation strategy with Iran, should surely have learned from the fallacies of the North Korea agreed framework example, which was that strategy's predecessor. When Senator Kerry and I were both in the Senate, he strongly supported the North Korea strategy and was harshly critical of the Bush administration for not doing the same. In March 2001, then-Senator Kerry said: The Clinton administration left a framework on the table which could, if pursued aggressively by the Bush administration, go a long way toward reducing the threat posed by North Korean missiles and missile exports . . . two days ago Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the Bush administration would ``pick up'' where the Clinton administration left off. Secretary Kerry went on to say: Apparently not. Yesterday, President Bush told . . . President Kim . . . that the administration would not resume missile talks with North Korea any time soon. I believe this was a serious mistake in judgment. Now, after the clear and massive failure of negotiations with North Korea, Secretary Kerry is pursuing a Groundhog Day strategy for dealing with Iran. We now know for certain that North Korea was simply using negotiations to lead us down that garden path to cynical noncompliance. So why do Secretary Kerry and President Obama continue to believe blindly in hopeful talks rather than hard-edged compulsion? This unguided blindness leads us to a second problem: The administration has ignored not only the United Nations Security Council, but the U.S. Congress as well. The administration has been clear about its intention to circumvent congressional scrutiny and agreement of any deal because of widespread bipartisan opposition. I believe that is a serious mistake. Any settlement of issues regarding Iran's nuclear program is of paramount importance to the security of the American people, not to mention the security and stability of the world. Any proposed agreement requires thorough review and deliberation by this Congress. An agreement on an issue of such vast significance requires a bipartisan, bicameral consensus and mutual support and agreement by both the executive and legislative branches of government. Anything less than that should not be acceptable. This is the most significant national security issue of our age, and it is being mishandled apparently to secure a legacy for the administration. Thus, it is all the more important to assert a vigorous congressional role before we are burdened with a bad agreement that does little to prevent a nuclear Iran. These negotiations with Iran began by yielding on the central issue. They now continue, while ignoring the proper, essential role of Congress, and it appears they are aimed at achieving a legacy for the Obama administration rather than enhancing national security. Most serious and dangerous of all is the strategic vacuum in which these Iran negotiations are taking place. Their failure will force us to face that void, and when we do, we must then return to the world that existed before these misguided negotiations began. We will have to renew and reinforce our efforts to impose crippling sanctions on Iran. We will have to redouble our efforts to bring our allies and friends along with us, preventing the carefully constructed international sanctions regimes from slipping. And now we must find ways to limit the damage being done by an irresponsible Russia, already signing deals with Iran worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately, and most challenging of all, we must find a way to make the threat of using military force as a last resort credible, but that will not be easy. Our Nation is militarily, politically, economically, and emotionally exhausted by wars, and now we have been forced to embark on yet another. Americans are justifiably repulsed by and fixated on the more immediate chaos of televised beheadings. A more abstract future threat of a nuclear Iran is beyond the horizon of most Americans, and the ayatollahs are counting on that. It is one of the many ways that the conflicts in Iraq and Syria are connected to our Iranian dilemma. Coping with all of that at once is what leadership is all about. Four American Presidents, including our current President, have declared that a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable. I will repeat that: Four American Presidents, including this current President, have declared that a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable. To give meaning to that repeated commitment and to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from getting that dangerous capability is the most urgent matter facing the United States and international security. A robust uranium-enrichment industry in Iran means a capability to produce nuclear weapons within an unacceptably brief amount of time. The consequences of a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran are not tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most powerful and effective efforts possible to prevent it from happening. That is our challenge. That is the role of the Senate. So we must insist on playing a significant role in the examination of whatever is being done and whatever might be put before us so we can examine it carefully and not repeat the mistakes of the past as we have with the North Koreans. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I regret that I just have 2 minutes. It is unfortunate that a bill with this amount of consequence for Americans is being debated in such a limited amount of time. We have 2 bills, one produced by the intelligence community, written and supported by the chairman, a Democrat from California, and by the vice chairman, the Republican from Georgia, and it passed on a bipartisan basis with more than a 3-to-1 ratio. Here we are trying to go forward, allowing only one vote on one different bill. Why do we have to rush this through in a lameduck session when it has such consequences and when the director of the agency that oversees this, when asked by me what are the ultimate consequences of this, his answer was: A compromise of our ability to detect terrorist attacks-- and the consequence will be Americans will die. And when that happens, and when those of us who go everyday to the Intelligence Committee know what the threat is--the threat is greater than it has ever been--we need to understand that eventually something will happen here, and people will turn to us and say: Did you have every possible tool in place to try to stop this from happening? If you didn't, why didn't you? Let's not have a repeat of 9/11 when the commission then comes to us and says get the tools that you need. This program has been so mischaracterized in terms of what it does and doesn't do. Even as I talk to my colleagues, they don't have a full understanding of what it doesn't do. It has more oversight than any other Federal program in our committee's jurisdiction. We have enhanced it through our committee with hours and hours of discussion, and here we have a bill that wasn't even taken up by the Judiciary Committee and was just brought here to the floor. So I urge my colleagues to think this through before we come to a conclusion we are going to regret. I thank the vice chairman for the time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation that the United States is facing regarding the new terrorist threat from the new caliphate--so-called caliphate state of ISIS. The President has announced that tomorrow he will address the American people and explain what he proposes to do about this new situation that faces us, this Islamic state of Iraq and Syria, otherwise called ISIS or IS. We are at a critical moment facing a serious danger, and now is the time to act together. For action to be effective, it needs our united support. That is why the President's address tomorrow is so important. I was alarmed by his admission in a press conference 10 days ago that he had no strategic policy in mind. So I welcome this opportunity now to learn what this strategy is, and I truly hope that it will be articulated fully and completely with clarity so that not only the American people but their representatives here in the House and the Senate know exactly what the President intends on doing and proposing. The unspeakable depravities committed by ISIS seem to have no limits. The alarm bells have become louder as ISIS henchmen continue their beheadings and their brutality and their barbarism. One of the most acute dangers ISIS poses is the wide scope of their ambitions. First Syria, then Iraq, now Lebanon, later possibly Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others are in their target sites. ISIS is now widely and correctly judged to be the largest, best organized, best financed, most capable, and most ambitious terrorist organization in history. So when the President explains his plan to degrade and defeat ISIS, I plan to carefully examine it and look through what I believe are the essential elements and hallmarks necessary for us to succeed: its determination, its courage, its resources to enact the plan, its vision for where we want to go, a clearly outlined goal that we want to achieve, and a realism that we can be successful. President Obama must outline the task of defending our Nation and degrading and defeating ISIS and clearly lay out before us how we will accomplish this. When I first addressed this subject last month, I outlined five areas in which I believed urgent action was required, and I hope the President's plan will include these five areas. First, as I have just said, I called for the Obama administration to articulate their own plan to confront ISIS and protect America. I trust this will happen tomorrow. Second, I called for a vigorous, concerted push with Islamic states and communities to stand up to the outrageous ISIS perversion of their religion and their culture. We haven't seen outrage in the region from those moderates, the leadership, the political as well as the people who simply see this action of ISIS as a perversion of their religion. As destructive and brutal as it is, where have they been? It is time for them to step up. I believe we must make a concerted push with Islamic states and communities to stand up to this outrage that is taking place. We should work with all political and religious authorities to speak out about how their faith and their culture is being co-opted and perverted by these ISIS criminals. We then must press them to take effective action to undercut the popular, political, and economic support ISIS extremists are getting. Genuine Muslim leaders--imams and others--need to take center stage to discredit the violent radicals and weaken their outreach and recruitment among Muslim youth. Third, last month I called for much greater security assistance for our potential partners in this fight against ISIS. The United States should move quickly to provide arms, training, and other requested assistance to Iraqi Kurdistan's Peshmerga forces and to other states that need and request support and will work with us to address this challenge. We need to find effective ways to support and directly arm the reliable, vetted Sunni tribes and Sunni leaders in Iraq who are essential partners in combating this ISIS extremism that ultimately are Sunni Islam's greatest interest and threat. Fourth, it is clear ISIS cannot be defeated without our participation. Therefore, I believe our current bombing campaign against ISIS targets should be continued and expanded to include ISIS bases in Syria. If we have learned anything from the wars in Vietnam, Korea and Serbia and our experience along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, we have learned the futility of attacking military forces that have safe haven bases just across the border or nearby leads to less than success and leads to potential defeat. Fifth, and lastly, I believe we need to address new dangers to our homeland by reassessing border security and determining whether it can be improved to address the threat of foreign fighters returning to the United States. The threat of Western, homegrown, radical, and violent jihadist terrorists is real and it is growing. We know that. ISIS boasts that they have trained and motivated fighters who are already embedded in many countries throughout the world and that they have their sights trained on the United States and Europe. There is no reason to disbelieve them. So we must respond to this threat to our country in every possible way. One effective step is to reevaluate our entry procedures, including the Visa Waiver Program. I know this is controversial. I know countries that have been loyal allies will raise alarms. But we have to understand that we need to conduct a thorough, candid assessment of how this Visa Waiver Program affects our national security interests and whether there are changes to the program that would enhance our security. Similar reviews of our refugee and asylum policies are also necessary. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee and a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I will seek such an assessment and pursue legislation that is responsive to the new danger we face. In conclusion, when President Obama unveils his strategy to defeat ISIS--not manage ISIS, not contain ISIS, but to defeat ISIS--I am hopeful his presentation will include at least the essential elements I talked about: clarity and coherence, sound diplomacy to bring Muslim nations and communities into firm opposition to ISIS extremism, appropriate expanded security assistance to partners in the struggle, enhanced military action to include Syria, and greater attention to border security. If what the President says tomorrow includes these elements, and hopefully more, then I will look very carefully as to how I can support the President and the strategy and encourage my colleagues to do the same, because I believe it is essential that to succeed against this threat, we need to speak with one voice. We need to be united as Americans--as a Congress and Americans throughout the country in terms of the nature of the threat, what we need to do to address it, and the plan and strategy to successfully achieve that goal. If it falls short, then I hope the Congress can work with the President to bring about the necessary steps to give us every opportunity to succeed in this challenging task. I hope we don't come to that point. I hope we can unite. I look forward to carefully examining the proposal. I trust we will be receiving at last leadership from the President of the United States and his team in terms of addressing what I think is a major crisis that cannot wait, cannot be managed. It cannot be classified as hoping something will work out. The world is yearning for leadership. On matters of foreign policy, it looks to the United States and it looks to the leader of the United States. We need to restore their confidence that we are taking this threat seriously and that we are engaging in an effort to address this successfully. So we wait with great anticipation for the remarks of the President that will occur tomorrow. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are now several months into the implementation of ObamaCare. The dust has settled. People from my State, Hoosiers, continue to see the reality of this law. Unfortunately what they see is not what they had hoped for. Earlier this month a news report revealed that health insurance rates will increase fairly dramatically in ``most States''--not just a few, not some but most. They said they are likely to rise in the coming year. Unfortunately, my State is one of those States. Unfortunately, ``likely to rise'' is an understatement. ``Dramatic increase'' would be a better phrase. The recent headline from the Indianapolis Business Journal reads, ``Indiana's ObamaCare rates for 2015 are all over the map.'' The first sentence of the article states, ``Initial 2015 premiums filed for the ObamaCare exchanges in Indiana range from as high as a 46-percent hike to as low as a 9-percent cut.'' The article continues: ``Those are the average changes in premiums proposed by the four health insurers that sold plans on the ObamaCare exchanges for 2014.'' One of those insurance companies providing health care to the State exchange we now learn is requesting rates that range from a 31-percent to a 59-percent increase in premiums. So the picture ahead for those who have been incorporated into ObamaCare in my State is the shock of double-digit and significant double-digit increases in their health care costs, not to mention that under their current plans they are paying higher deductibles, which result in higher costs they first have to put out before they are reimbursed. But now there is an increase of significance for their premiums going into next year. I know the majority leader said all the stories we have been telling about real people and their reactions to the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, are fiction. I was on the floor when he said that. We all did a double take because we have been receiving thousands--literally thousands--of emails, physical mail, and phone calls. The phones are ringing off the hook about people alarmed over what they were experiencing signing up for ObamaCare, and, secondly, what the terms were going to be. So we collected all of these. We have hundreds if not thousands of real live examples, not made up, not fiction, basically describing the impact on them and their families as Obamacare was put in place. Let me state one of those incidents. I will use just the first name. I do not want to put this person at risk for some kind of pushback. But Charles from Auburn, IN, emailed me and shared that his wife had just received a cancellation notice from her insurance provider. Charles said the notice indicated that the wife--he said: They said my wife's policy did not comply with the requirements of ObamaCare and the replacement policy-- Which she would have to take if she wanted the coverage. --would be $695.38 a month as compared to her current policy premium of $316 a month. By my math, that is over a 100-percent increase. That is more than a doubling of what he had paid before. Also, the notice said, ``Your deductible will be $6,000.'' That is every medical expense that she has will have to be paid for before Charles and his wife can get any reimbursement. Now I wish these stories were fiction, but unfortunately I receive emails such as this on a regular basis. Thousands of Hoosiers have lost their coverage that they liked, that they chose and relied on because of the implementation of Obamacare. We have been talking about replacing this act with something far more sensible and something far more reasonable. Yet we have been denied the opportunity to go forward with offering any kind of amendments, modifications, repeal or any other process. That is unfortunate but not just for us. It is unfortunate for the country and unfortunate for all of those people whom we represent who would like to see modifications and a much more affordable and much better range of choices for the provisions of health care. The 2,000-page ObamaCare law was sold to the American people on what now has turned out to be false pretenses. I believe we owe it to them to replace this law with some commonsense solutions that increase access to quality care without increasing costs. It is doable if we had the opportunity to do it. Unfortunately, we have been denied that, but the American people are speaking. I think they will continue to speak about the need for those reforms that will have to take place if we are going to provide affordable care for Americans. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the tragedy of the civilian airliner shot out of the sky by a Russian surface-to-air missile, cutting short the lives of 298 innocent civilians. Parents, children and spouses of victims have expressed deep anguish, and we all feel their grief. All of us agree the images we are seeing from the crash site are heartbreaking and sickening. President Obama, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, leaders throughout the world, and many others have expressed their outrage at the vicious, uncivilized act that took place at 33,000 feet over the country of Ukraine. A few days ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated firmly: For too long there has been a reluctance on the part of too many European countries to face up to the implications of what is happening in eastern Ukraine. . . . Elegant forms of words and fine communiques are no substitute for real action. The weapons and fighters being funneled across the border between Russia and eastern Ukraine; the support to the militias; the half-truths, the bluster, the delays. They have to stop. As the prime minister acknowledged: This is a moment when words of condemnation and expressions of grief are simply not enough. This is a moment when action must follow the outrage and rhetorical condemnation. The tragedy of Malaysian Airlines 17 will be a defining event in history. It is a defining event for Russia, first and foremost, and for its President, Vladimir Putin. It is no secret that Putin has imperial ambitions, motivated by his pathological insecurities, and a quest to restore lost glory to Mother Russia. These are dangerous delusions. If they are not confronted firmly, they will come to threaten us all. But it is also a defining event for the United States and its European allies. The festering danger in Ukraine is the result of the civilized world's faltering half-steps as a meager, timid and all too minimal response to Russia's invasion of a neighbor in violation of sovereign borders. This is an opportunity for American leadership, in step with our European allies, to spur the community of nations to act together and be a force for good and be a force for the right change that needs to take place--not later, but now. It is a defining event for President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Today these two leaders, the two who are most able to influence this situation, can stand up and demonstrate leadership that will shape history. So this is a pivotal moment--a pivotal moment for the United States, for Germany, for the European Union and for the world. Given the significance of this event in this moment, what are we to do? I do not have all the answers. I have been suggesting harsh sanctions, sanctions that bite, that hit Russia hard ever since their invasion of Crimea. As I have said earlier, what has been done is far too short of what needs to be done to punish Russia for the breach of sovereignty and now this brutal and terrible tragic result and consequence of what they are doing in eastern Ukraine. So first we need to ask the entire civilized world to join the United States, our European allies, and everyone in condemning this outrageous act. Events like this tragedy have no place in the modern world. This unassailable fact needs to be acknowledged globally and more than once. It needs to be acknowledged repeatedly until it becomes so loud that Putin and the Russians can hear it in Moscow and in the Kremlin and see that what has taken place is the direct result of their engagement in eastern Ukraine. Secondly, I think we need to demand complete cooperation with the ongoing investigation. Positive steps are beginning to take place far too late, but at least they are starting to take place. Our commitment to the rule of law, rules of evidence, and to the demands of justice require that we go through this investigative process, and we must insist on the access to do so. We must demand full, immediate, unhindered access to the site of the tragedy, including all parts of the aircraft, missile battery, site evidence and, most of all, proper treatment of the remains of the many victims. President Putin by himself can ensure that success and that access, and he absolutely must be required to do so. Third, we need to demand an immediate Russian stand-down in Ukraine. Crimes like Malaysia Airlines flight 17 can only happen in such a lawless wasteland--renegades and desperados with their fingers on the triggers of the world's most advanced weapons. Lawlessness reigns in eastern Ukraine because the government of that nation still does not have sovereign control of its own territory. The situation is greatly exacerbated as a result of President Putin's outrageous territorial aggression. He has already severed an arm of Ukraine and threatened an entire country's disintegration. Make no mistake, the Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have been organized, motivated, trained, equipped, unleashed, guided, and controlled by the forces of the Russian Federation which are controlled themselves--with totalitarian execution--by none other than President Vladimir Putin. Now we see a new tragic result of this aggression, of sponsorship, of ruthless renegades--a blatant act of terrorism inflicted on innocent people. This problem will only get worse unless we demand that Russian behavior change and Putin's aggression stop. It needs to be a voice that resounds from every nation, civilized nation, in the world. The only solution to the Ukraine problem is doing what is consistent with our national law. The demands of order and civility and the requirements of justice are what Russia must acknowledge and that the Government of Ukraine must have sovereign control over its own territory. No. 4, the United States and Europe must, at last, act vigorously and in unison if we are to succeed in this effort. Until now, President Obama has sent largely weak signals to Putin about the seriousness of Russia's actions. Our European partners have been reluctant to act, some hypnotized by anxiety about their economic dependency on Russian oil and gas. Let us hope that after this horrific act of terror against 298 innocent passengers on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, this view is changing and changing quickly. History will see this event as a watershed moment. Some argue that the Soviet downing of Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983 was an event that exposed the true nature of the Soviet regime and hastened its decay. Similarly, Malaysia Airlines flight 17 reveals to any remaining doubters the nature of Putin and his brutal ambitions and ruthlessness. With illusions stripped away, the inadequacy of half measures revealed, we must now act and act together. We can respond to this tragedy by forming and forging a new unity. But only the most robust and concerted actions to impose economic sanctions on Russia have a chance to change Putin's behavior and end Russian support for the separatist militants and, to be effective, we and the Europeans must do this together, imposing these costs. We need to target the fragile Russian economy through sanctions on Russia's energy sector and State-backed arms exporter. While it may take time for Russia to feel the effects of sanctions on the energy sector, we can take action today that would have an immediate effect. I have previously introduced legislation that prohibits all government contracts with Putin's arms dealers. Taking steps to meaningfully obstruct this agency's work and the revenue it provides the Russian State is one of the most effective ways we can condemn Putin's aggression. Through these specific sanctions we can demand that Putin end his support for the separatists and accept and work toward a stable Ukraine. If not, I suggest we do whatever is necessary to bring Russia's economy to its knees. We need to see that stock market plummet. We need to see confidence and support for anything Russia makes or exports denied by the civilized nations of the world. We need to put measures there to prevent their manufacturing and shipment of arms to people such as Assad in Syria, to the Iranians, to the groups that are creating havoc around the world. Russia's arms exports are a major source of their revenue. We need to stop them. The decision is in their hands. Following this horrific, brutal, tragic event, they have the responsibility to the world's nations to step up and address this issue. This crisis has reached a point of high tension, great tragedy, and escalated consequences. These potential consequences are dangerous for all of us but, most of all, they are dangerous for Putin's Russia. Russia's President holds in his hands the ability to de-escalate this crisis or to pay a very steep price. We need to define and implement that steep price if he doesn't take this action. It is Putin's choice to bring this situation back from the brink. It is our obligation, along with our European partners, to make Putin's choice crystal clear. 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. Mr. President, as have many Americans, I have watched with increasing concern and increasing frustration the rapidly growing humanitarian crisis on our southern border. More than 60,000 unaccompanied alien children--mostly minors from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--have been apprehended at the border in this fiscal year, and we have 2\1/2\ months remaining. The numbers are staggering. Another 40,000 family members--one or both parents traveling with their children--have also been apprehended just in this fiscal year. To put these numbers in perspective, in 2008, the number of unaccompanied alien children apprehended at the border was 8,000. Three years later, in 2011, the number had doubled. It had doubled to 16,000. This is a situation we perhaps didn't see coming, but should have. Today, of course, the numbers are staggering, as I mentioned. The number has skyrocketed. In fact, in April and May of this year, 10,000 have arrived. We simply cannot sit back and let this situation grow worse as it does day by day. We must now find a way to solve this crisis and stem the flow of unaccompanied minors entering our country. It is imperative that this Congress and this administration work together to do this and do this immediately. We dare not move toward our regularly scheduled August recess without accomplishing the solution or resolution of this current crisis, which is impacting children, impacting families, impacting communities, impacting many across the United States in terms of this crisis. As we do this, I think it is important that we be guided by some key principles, including laws that are currently on the books--laws that might need to be adjusted--as well as compassionate hearts in terms of how we deal with those who are here but will need to be returned to their homeland. First, clearly and foremost, we have to enforce existing law. Existing law says we need an orderly process. Immigration needs to be legal. It needs to be processed in an orderly way and in a way so that we can accommodate those who come from out of the country. I am the son of an immigrant who was processed through a legal process, a process that speaks for many of us not only here in this Chamber but for many across America. We are all in a sense immigrants. For over 200 years, we have come as immigrants through a legal process. Today we find a situation where our borders are being swamped with those who are attempting to come illegally, for whatever reason. More importantly, we have to make it clear to them that the law does not allow this to happen. So we have to get control of the border. We have to get control of our immigration process. I think all of us feel the need for immigration reform. Step No. 1 has to be securing our borders so we can convince the American people we can return to an orderly process of bringing immigrants to this country and not be overwhelmed by the illegal immigration flowing to our southern borders. It is also important because we need to let the families know and the children know their trip to America is not what has been promised them. Many believe this humanitarian crisis is focused on how we handle these children once they arrive at the border, and there is a need to address that issue. But in reality, the crisis for these children begins when they start their trip, given the dangers of the journey. We now know the children who are making these dangerous treks from Central America are often in the hands of smugglers, drug cartels, coyotes-- criminal elements that are delivering a false lie to families and individuals in these countries. They are basically saying, Get your children across the border and they will then be absorbed into American society and they will be in a better place. And, by the way, write us a check for $7,000 or $10,000 or $5,000, whatever the market bears, and we will ensure that your children arrive safely, and then you won't have to worry about them anymore. That is simply not true. Sadly, from the latest information that has come to us, in surveys that are being taken and investigations that are being made, the story is horrendous. Often, for those in the hands of those who are seeking to bring them along the approximately 1,500-mile trip from Central America to the Texas border, the reality of what these children are facing and what these families are facing is startling and it is an issue that absolutely has to be addressed. Doctors Without Borders exists in southern and central Mexico, and they did surveys of those who were attempting to make this trip. They indicated that 58 percent of their patients suffered at least--at least--one episode of violence along their way from Central America to the United States. One media network did an investigation that followed the path of Central American migrants, including children, and while their numbers have not been verified or documented, they are staggering. Even if the results are half of what they claim, it is a situation of immense humanitarian dysfunction. They found that 80 percent of all migrants will be assaulted, 60 percent of women will be raped, and only 40 percent will actually make it to the border. Let's say those numbers are exaggerated. There is some indication this media outlet was, perhaps, sensationalizing their numbers. Let's say it is just half of that. But if it is half of that, it is a situation we absolutely cannot tolerate. We absolutely cannot sit by and say the only humanitarian crisis is taking care of these children once they cross the border--making sure they have vaccinations, sustenance, and a place to sleep until we get them processed. Those who claim that need to understand the crisis that exists before they ever get to the border, and the impact on these children in particular. In 2010, when the narrative coming out of the administration was chipping away at our Nation's immigration laws through the abuse of prosecutorial discretion, this generated whispers of hope that ran rampant through the families of our Central American neighbors and gave a false confidence that if you illegally enter our country, once you are here, you will be able to stay. The belief spread in 2012 when the President took his prosecutorial discretion a step further by essentially halting the removal of illegal immigrants who arrived as minors. There was a process where, of course, they were given a piece of paper, which basically said: You have to appear before a judge, who will determine whether you are able to stay in the country or whether you will have to be sent back home. The narrative there was: This is your document that allows you to stay in America. In fact, it was not that at all. But because of the overwhelming number of people who received these documents, allowing them to stay here until they were adjudicated by a judge--because that number now exists around 375,000, and there is no way we can possibly adjudicate these and make these decisions in a short amount of time-- those who arrived simply melded into the society, and most never showed up before a judge who was making a decision about their legality or illegality. A key part of what we have to do here, in my opinion, is a repatriation plan. It is easy to just simply throw money out there and say we will come up with a plan later. I cannot support a provision that does not have policy changes to address this situation--policy changes that will allow us to inform our Central American neighbors that they must make every possible effort to engage with us in telling the truth to their constituencies and the parents of these children as to what lies ahead for them: the fact that they will be subjected to potential brutality, unspeakable, brutal efforts and consequences of this trip, as well as returned to their families and their countries. We have to together make this message clear that our laws require that these children be sent back, but we also have to make it abundantly clear they are putting their children at great harm and great risk to believe this narrative that says: They will be fine, they will be taken care of. Just give us the money and we will make sure your children become Americans and they will be fine in the future. Secondly, I think we need to go a step further. To deter children from making this journey, we have to return those who have already come. Included in a viable repatriation program has to be a streamlined process. I mentioned the number of the hundreds of thousands who are still waiting for their adjudication. There have been efforts and suggestions made by some of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis that we address and dramatically increase the number of judges who can go down to the border and make these decisions quickly so we can safely return these children home without having the horror of seeing these children rejected in different communities and no place to put them, as the numbers simply overwhelm our ability to care for them. The administration does have some flexibility under current law to move families and children through these immigration proceedings in an accelerated manner. However, I believe--and the Secretary of Homeland Security has stated--that we need to go further to change current law to treat all unaccompanied alien children the same. Now this is the President's own Secretary of Homeland Security, who has been to the border, whom I have met with and talked to several times, who is assiduously trying to address this issue in a bipartisan way. We need to work together to make sure we put the processes in place and the policies in place before we simply decide on a number and hope for the best later. We need to change the law to allow Central American children who qualify to choose voluntarily to return as well, rather than go through drawn-out immigration proceedings that should still lead to their removal and damage any chance they have to seek legal immigration in the future. This narrative out there, this story out there, is: Oh well, just go back across the border. Then maybe tomorrow you will get back here, and someone else will pick you up, and you will go to a different place, and you will start the process all over again, and you will finally get handed a piece of paper, and then don't worry about showing up in 12 to 18 months later. You can meld into society, and everything will be well. That absolutely has to be addressed. If we do not do that, we will not succeed with this process. We also need to use our leverage with these foreign countries to gain their cooperation if they refuse to cooperate with us--whether it is withholding foreign aid, whether it is any number of punitive measures. We need to make sure the governments of these nations understand the risk to their children, the harm to their children, and the fact that we are going to enforce the law, and that if they want to continue future relations with the United States through a legal immigration process, they have to work with us to convince their constituencies and give them the truth as to what is happening to their children--to engage in this process of working with us to stop this flow of illegals. Now, obviously, we have to provide reasonable care for those who are already here. The vast majority of the new funding the President is requesting would go for caring for the illegal immigrants who are already here. It includes housing, transporting, and caring for the children and families already in the United States. I believe it is our responsibility as a nation and as a compassionate society to care for the hurt and displaced. But we cannot simply open our arms and encourage all the world's children to strike out on their own, face endless dangers, and come to our shores with the belief that they will be welcomed and accepted and integrated into our society. We simply do not have the capacity to do that on a worldwide basis, and we see the trouble we are having from just three countries. What are we actually doing to stem the flow of unaccompanied alien children coming to the United States? And when will we begin to see the tide turn? That is something that has to happen and must happen initially. Finally, in addition to the care which we must provide--the sustenance and the health care and the bedding and the nutrition and the efforts we need to make; and thank goodness for so many nonprofit organizations, churches, and others that have volunteered to join us in this particular effort--but it cannot be an ongoing effort. It has to be something that is accompanied by significant changes I have talked about before in terms of policy. You have to stop the bleeding. You have to stop the effort first and convince the American people that we finally gained control of our borders before we can move to any kind of sensible immigration reform. This is going to be expensive. We are going to have to make sure the money we are spending is spent as part of a plan to address the problem--not just simply address it and have the problem continue, but address it in a way, on a one-time basis, that we put an end to this story: Send your children and they will be just fine. Mr. President, the time is moving on, and I know my colleague is waiting to speak and we have votes coming up. So let me shorten this by simply concluding, at the end of the day, we have a huge humanitarian crisis on our hands on our border. I believe we have a moral responsibility to swiftly address and solve this crisis. We have to understand that the crisis involves more than just unaccompanied minors. We cannot ignore the national security implications of a weak border. There are many dark powers in this world that wish to see the influence of the United States diminish--that wish to extinguish the beacon of freedom that we have been to the world. So for the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of our national security and the safety of these children, it is imperative we act now and get it right. It will only happen if this body, the Congress--the House and the Senate--and the President will work together to put in place, on an expedited basis, a sensible plan to address this humanitarian crisis. ``Save the children'' means: Don't put those children in the hands of smugglers, coyotes, criminal elements, only for them to go through the horrendous consequences that have become the humanitarian crisis we are addressing. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, the Supreme Court issued a ruling last week that I wish to discuss for a few moments today. This decision marks a very important development in the ongoing debate our country is engaged in on the subject of religious freedom. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court reported that the contraception coverage mandate imposed by the Affordable Care Act on family-owned companies such as Hobby Lobby stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These two companies are owned by individuals who have faith-based objections to providing access to contraceptives that can terminate a pregnancy. While it is true some faith-based institutions object to the mandate on religious grounds, their insurance companies which are covering them and their employees in that business are mandated to provide support for contraception. It is also true, but not really distinguished and noticed in the media, that there are a number of institutions which are saying: You can't couch this under the umbrella of contraception, you have to understand that what we are opposed to here is not all forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby has been clear to state that they fall under this category, although they oppose the morning-after pill and other contraceptives that induce abortions. The Supreme Court's ruling means employers such as Hobby Lobby or Grote Industries in my home State of Indiana--a family-run auto lighting company--will not be forced to take actions contrary to their religious beliefs. I applaud this ruling issued by the Court because freedom of religion is a core American principle guaranteed by our First Amendment, and through this decision the Court has affirmed that the administration simply can't pick and choose when and how or whether to adhere to the Constitution. While this ruling is a welcome positive step, it is important to note that religious freedom is still under attack across this country. It is under attack because the Court's ruling applies only to a very narrow rule, family-owned for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby, when many faith-based organizations, charities, hospitals, educational institutions are still required to facilitate insurance coverage that includes contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs despite their religious beliefs and despite their moral objections. Requiring these faith-based institutions and businesses to betray the fundamental tenets of their beliefs is, I believe, unconstitutional, and the administration's so-called accommodation is far from adequate in this fundamental breach of our First Amendment rights under our Constitution. Those impacted by this mandate are a large and diverse group that includes Indiana-based institutions such as Grace College in Winona Lake, IN, the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, and many other schools based on a religious foundation that find a moral and religious objection. Despite conscious objections and the University of Notre Dame's clearly outlined standards and values, Notre Dame was told by a Federal appeals court late last year that it must comply with the ObamaCare mandate, which they are appealing. My alma mater, one of those institutions, Wheaton College, was told by the Supreme Court only last week that it doesn't have to abide by the contraceptive coverage mandate until the judicial system determines whether the administration's requirement is valid over religious institutions and other nonprofits. Just an aside, it was surprising to read this morning in the Wall Street Journal that--in fact, it was disappointing and highly unusual-- despite the Court explicitly stating its decision to grant Wheaton College a temporary injunction ``should not be construed as an expression of the Court's views on the merits'' of Wheaton's case, having explicitly stated that, one Justice wrote a dissenting opinion in which she essentially decided on the merits of the Wheaton case herself. That is the first time, in my recollection. I don't follow every decision of the Supreme Court, but I follow many of them--but it is surprising that a Justice would allow their ideological passion on a particular issue to so mischaracterize the ruling of the Court that simply provided for an injunction to give the time for the court system to make a ruling. Nevertheless, that is not why I came to the floor this evening. I thought in terms of thinking through this issue and what I might say that it appears to be ideological bias on the Court that raised its ugly head here, and hopefully that will be retracted. But whether it is Wheaton College, whether it is Notre Dame or Grace College or numerous other institutions, it is important to understand that in many of these institutions a thread of faith, a stream of water, runs through everything they do in those organizations, and particularly in those schools of higher learning and those entities that provide social services through the food banks, through dealing with the homeless. The element of faith is important to their success, it is important to their results, and it is important to their beliefs. Whether it is faith in learning as the central part of institutions such as Notre Dame, Wheaton College, or others, or whether it is a homeless shelter in South Bend, IN--that is the combination of churches, university, city, county, some Federal funding, some local funding, and some volunteer funding--it is essential, as they have told me on one of my visits, that this ribbon of faith is essential to the success of their program and to the rehabilitation of those who walk through the front door, often homeless, and leave months and years later with the capabilities of full employment, gainful employment, and become homeowners instead of homeless. Whether it is food banks or homeless shelters or other important organizations, so many of these are meeting needs of people across this Nation. But these institutions are seeing this ribbon of faith and the free exercise of religion constrained and restricted by this administration's mandate under the Obama health care law. What is at stake here is of extreme significance. Established in the founding of our Nation and sustained for over 200 years, religious freedom is at the very core of our system of government, and protection of religious liberty means all people of all faiths have the right to exercise their faith within the bounds of our justice system even if their belief seems to some as misguided or flawed or flatout wrong. But what is unique about America and what is guaranteed in our Constitution is that we do not have the right to dictate to those people how to express their faith so long as they are within the bounds of justice, how to express their faith, live their faith, and employ their faith. Taking that right away from faith-based institutions is flatout wrong and I believe a violation of the most precious amendment to the Constitution. Faith-based institutions should not have to facilitate insurance coverage for products that are counter to their religious or moral beliefs. To require them to betray the fundamental tenets of their beliefs and accept this violation of their First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution is simply wrong. In a joint statement released shortly after announcement of the Hobby Lobby decision, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said: Now is the time to redouble our effort to build a culture that fully respects religious freedom. That is really what we are asking for. We are asking this administration to respect those institutions' and those individuals' religious freedom as guaranteed under our Constitution. Whether we agree with their tenets, whether we ideologically take a position in favor or not in favor, it is their right and it is guaranteed. I hope in the coming days the Supreme Court will strike down the administration's mandate for all faith-based institutions and rescind this unprecedented attack on religious freedom. While we await further action from the Court, now is the time for this body--the Senate--and all Americans of faith to stand for our country's longstanding right to the freedom of religion. It was the father of our country, after all, George Washington, who once said: I have often expressed my sentiment, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. We today know that reference to ``every man'' also includes every woman and every human being, the right to be accountable to God alone for their religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their own conscience--not the dictates of a Federal Government that says ``We know better,'' not the dictates of those who simply say ``We will interpret that liberty to our satisfaction to accomplish our purposes.'' As in Washington's times, we must defend these rights of conscience and preserve religious liberty for all Americans regardless of their choice of belief and expression of their faith. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I just returned a couple of hours ago to Washington from Indiana, and over the last several months, as I have been visiting and talking to Hoosiers, I have continued to hear concerns about--and I am concerned, frankly--this widening trust deficit between the American people--at least the people I represent, and I think I can say pretty much across this country--and Washington. The American people lack confidence in Washington, confidence that they are getting the straight story, the hard truth. Not a lot of good things over the past several months have come out of either this body or a number of Washington agencies. This trust gap is ever widening as we have kind of careened from scandal to scandal, incident to incident, broken promises made by top officials, false statements being made, the latest of which is now this resurrection again of the IRS scandal. Let me say this: It has been said that no agency in Washington is less forgiving than the Internal Revenue Service. No agency in Washington has more power over the American people than the Internal Revenue Service. If there is an agency that needs to be apolitical and to not engage in anything that could even be deemed political, it is the IRS, given the power they have to destroy your reputation, destroy your finances, and destroy your business. The way they work is they determine you are in violation, in a sense reversing what is sacrosanct in America; that is, you are innocent until proven guilty, but under the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. You have to hire lawyers and accountants and sit down with them to prove you are not violating their rules. That is upside down. One of the founding principles which sets the United States apart from other nations and makes us exceptional is the First Amendment to the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, Americans are constitutionally guaranteed the right to organize around the issues and values they believe in and the right to disagree with their government. We look around the world and see that is not the case in very many places. But in America, that cherished right to take a position opposite our government--to protest, to organize, and to seek changes as a result of that organization--this liberty is part of what energizes and fuels the very spirit of America and everything we stand for. So when a so-called independent agency of the Federal Government attacks average American citizens for expressing their beliefs, a fundamental trust is broken and it is very hard to repair. Again, no agency has perhaps more intimidating power over American citizens than the Internal Revenue Service. We owe it to the American taxpayers to reveal the truth--the full truth--of what has happened at the IRS and repair the damage of this agency's reckless actions in regard to those who have organized for political purposes, to protest, to assert their First Amendment rights, to follow the law and exercise those First Amendment rights, without having an agency of the government targeting them and intruding on what they are trying to do. It is clear now that in 2010 the IRS targeted conservative groups-- including one in my home State--for extra scrutiny based on political leanings. The agency displayed a stunning abuse of power and complete disregard of our Constitution in taking this action. Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Unit and the official at the center of this ongoing congressional investigation, refuses to testify before Congress on the advice of her attorney. Yes, she has the right to plead the Fifth Amendment to not answer questions, but we are getting stonewalled by the IRS in getting to the bottom of this and determining what kind of abuse has taken place against the American people. We are trying to reach the truth, but we are being denied that opportunity to reach the truth because those who know the truth refuse to testify under subpoena from the Congress. Last Friday my House colleagues heard testimony from IRS Commissioner John Koskinen about missing emails from Lerner and six of her IRS subordinates. Now, isn't this a coincidence? We know the IRS has been targeting groups, attacking their First Amendment rights, and the House oversight committee is seeking to find out whether this happened. The IRS is denying it, but Lois Lerner refuses to testify. IRS Commissioner Koskinen comes in and says this is not true. OK. Let's prove it. The IRS asks taxpayers to prove they didn't violate their rights under the IRS rules, but when we ask the IRS: Can you prove whether what you are saying is the truth, that you were not targeting these organizations, they claim they lost the evidence. They say the server crashed and all the emails we could trace back to determine the truth of this are lost. They are all gone. The American people know that you can get into hard drives and find out everything ever put in there. Isn't it strange that only the IRS determined that, well, this whole thing crashed, so let's get rid of the hard drives. Now, thousands of emails that could have led to a trace and allowed us to find the truth, disappeared. What a coincidence. Do we think the American people buy this story? It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. To claim that 2 years' worth of emails were completely, inadvertently lost is laughable on its face. So no emails, no backups, a crashed server, assertions made long after Members of Congress requested the information demonstrates at best a troubling lack of transparency and potentially criminal negligence. After all, the IRS is required to archive these emails by law. But let's put this in perspective. The very organization that expects busy, hard-working Americans to maintain meticulous financial records and complete extensive, confusing tax forms each year can't find 2 years' worth of emails sent by its own employees. Even though we live in a day and age where virtually nothing ever disappears from the Internet, the IRS wants us to believe these emails are lost for good-- and maybe they are if they took all the steps they have taken. So to echo the comments of my colleague chairman Paul Ryan: The IRS owes every American taxpayer an apology. But an apology is not enough. We need answers and we need to find the truth. When this scandal first surfaced, the President promised Americans that he would ``work hand-in-hand with Congress to get this thing fixed.'' That is a quote, ``I will work hand in hand with Congress to get this thing fixed.'' So how are they fixing it? They are sending the employees who were engaged and involved in this, and they basically either take the Fifth Amendment, saying they will not answer the questions, or they say: Gee. We lost all this stuff. I am sorry. Each of our six hard drives collapsed, and therefore we can't retrieve any kind of evidence that would prove where they are. I am not a big fan of special prosecutors. I think giving them that power has not always proven to be the best way to get to the bottom of something, but in certain cases where there is such clear evidence that the truth is being withheld and evidence that could lead us to a conclusion is potentially being destroyed--I think that is the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this. We need to start restoring the trust of the American people in their government agencies and in their government. Until we get to the bottom of this, this widening trust gap is going to continue. Appointing an independent investigator would allow us access to Federal computer records to determine whether copies of these missing emails can be found on the government IT network. Perhaps they have scrubbed them in a way that it will not happen, but at least it would allow us an independent assessment of what is going on. We can work to restore trust, but doing so will require answers and honesty from the Internal Revenue Service, which we are not getting. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, last week our Nation commemorated the 70th anniversary of D-day. Leo Scheer of Huntington County, IN, is one of those courageous veterans who survived the outlying assault on the beaches of Normandy, and last month he made the trip to Washington, DC, through the Honor Flight Network to receive a hero's welcome from a grateful Nation. My office had the honor of greeting Leo and this group of heroes upon their arrival to the World War II Memorial, and Leo made an unforgettable impression with his humility, demeanor, and strength of character. Leo is a member of what we have come to know as the ``greatest generation.'' They easily deserve that title, where duty comes as second nature, where braggadocio is not present, where simply standing up and serving your country in a time of crisis is responded to overwhelmingly without complaint and with true honor and dignity. Sadly, there are a dwindling number of those not only who arrived on the shores of D-day in Normandy but those who served throughout the world's largest military conflict in history. While those great service men and women are still here to share their stories--at least a few--we must remember the sacred promise that we as a Nation made to them to give them the care they deserve when they come back home. As a veteran myself, my hope is that our Nation will carry out this promise not only to our World War II vets but to all who have served in conflicts from that point forward--from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. We must live up to the promise for all who were called to serve and answered that call. Regrettably, in recent months we have seen this promise broken and shattered. Just this week an internal audit by the Department of Veterans Affairs revealed that the department's problems have affected 76 percent of VA facilities. Nearly 100,000 veterans continue to wait for medical appointments. These are staggering figures. In my home State of Indiana confirmed audit findings show that veterans endured unacceptably long wait times. Some Hoosier veterans never even received an appointment. This is unacceptable. That is why today I stand here to support the bipartisan Sanders-McCain veterans bill that would implement key changes to the existing VA health care system. This is not a perfect bill, and there are parts of it that I wish were different. I hope that we can manage some needed changes as it moves over to the House of Representatives and then to conference. I hope the final bill will make our veterans proud and begin the process of reform that the VA so desperately needs. Let me address three key reforms in this legislation that I think are essential to moving forward and the primary reason why I have agreed to support this. First, giving veterans more choices in care--perhaps the most important provision in this legislation--is allowing veterans who cannot be scheduled within a reasonable time the option to receive care from non-VA facilities or private sector facilities outside of the VA. This also applies to veterans that reside more than 40 miles away from a VA facility, many of them not in a condition to be able to secure the transportation they need for that care, so they don't have to endure long drives to get care. We must ensure that veterans receive timely care, and if the VA cannot provide it, then our veterans should be free to go elsewhere for care, including Medicare providers. Second, the removal of bad actors--there are a lot of good people working at VA. Their hearts are in the right place. They are talented and provide good care and good service. I don't mean to demean their contributions to veterans' health care, but we do know that there have been mistakes, mismanagement, and there has been some outright fraud, it appears. We will have to prosecute that. This reform would authorize the Secretary of the VA to demote or fire senior executive service employees based on their performance. That is not present now, and if we are going to change the management it takes more than just asking the first top person to resign as has happened. We need to look at the management team and those that oversee those that are providing the care and what their responsibility is in that role. Passage here would shake up the leadership of the VA so those people can be held accountable for their actions. The third provision I want to mention is providing more VA locations. It is clear that some of our veterans have to travel very long distances. Also it is clear that the facilities currently in place are short of help and there are not enough to address the needs of the many veterans that are entering the system. So this bill would establish 26 new VA medical facilities around the country. As I said, while this legislation is not perfect, it is an important start but it should not and will not be the end of our work to live up to our promises to veterans. Ultimately, as I stated before to our body of Senators, the VA needs a change of culture. Too many bureaucrats view our veterans as a list of numbers rather than the heroes worthy of our very best care. We have to look at our veterans through a different lens, one that sees them clearly as defenders of our freedom and as the heroes they are. We must continue to investigate and reform the culture within the VA and ensure that this crisis doesn't happen again. That is why I called for an independent investigation. This bill authorizes the process of beginning these independent evaluations. Also the committee has provided additional funding to specifically allow the inspector general to conduct an independent investigation into the VA, and I join my many colleagues to ask the Department of Justice to join in this investigation. Now, unfortunately, this culture of indifference at the VA is not new. For years veterans have faced excessively long waits for disability claims. When I returned to the Senate in 2011, these waits were over 600 days in Indianapolis. Veterans were waiting over 2 years to have their claims adjudicated. Once we shined a light on the problem, the situation improved somewhat, but our veterans still face waits that are far too long both for medical visits and to receive their disability benefits. My staff in Indianapolis currently have over 550 active cases that we are working on for Hoosier veterans who are seeking help and have not gotten satisfactory responses from the VA. So they call us and say: Can you help? We do everything that we can to help expedite the process. In many cases these veterans are just trying to assess the benefits that they have rightfully earned and they just want an answer. Reflecting on Leo Scheer's service to our Nation on D-day reminded me of the opportunity that I had to visit the beaches of Normandy while I was Ambassador to Germany. It was, to say the least, a powerful and extremely emotional experience standing on the bluffs overlooking the spread of beaches from Utah to Omaha, and it made me reflect on the countless lives lost in service to our Nation. I was standing there on a perfectly calm day. The water was gently lapping on the shore. The beaches were empty. A soft warm breeze was blowing. The sun was shining--just a beautiful day--and I was overwhelmed by the violence that must have taken place that I could only have imagined. We have all seen the movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' and I give Mr. Spielberg great credit for making that a very realistic picture of what happens. But I don't think Hollywood, or those of us who weren't there, could imagine the violence that was taking place on that beach when our troops went ashore. The silence was not there. There must have been a cacophony of noise with hundreds of ships offshore unloading our soldiers into landing vehicles. Many of them were shot down by the German bunkers up in the bluffs, built-in concrete fortifications--an almost impossible task. Many of them never even got out of their landing craft. When the doors opened, many were shot before they reached the water. The water was red with the blood from our soldiers who never made it to the beach. The beach was littered with bodies of those who never made it to the edge of the cliff. And the sacrifice that was made in climbing those cliffs and getting to those German bunkers took many, many hundreds if not thousands of more lives. So visiting the graves of soldiers afterwards, pausing to say a prayer of gratitude for their sacrifice leads us to this point where we have to understand what it is we are trying to provide and why we need to provide it. That is in a response to those who put their lives on the line and sacrificed those lives--and many ended up with lifelong disabilities--a commitment to those that we would take care of them when they came back. They have come back and run into a government-run bureaucracy that has run amuck. If it proves anything, it proves that government just simply doesn't do big stuff very well, without confusion, without bureaucracy, without duplication, without excessive costs. It is not efficient and not effective, nowhere near what the private sector can offer. That is why there is the provision for veterans who cannot get care at the VA on a timely basis to have the opportunity to use our private system. They deserve our utmost care. They served on the frontline, but when they go for benefit decisions and when they go for health care, they are not in the front of the line, they are at the back of the line, and that is not right. We cannot let the sun set today, and I am glad we are not, because we are voting to move this legislation forward. In doing so we are going to make a statement that we are going to try to live up to that promise and do the best that we possibly can. As I said, as a veteran I expect my country to fulfill the promises to my fellow service men and women, and as a Senator I will seek to hold the Veterans' Administration accountable and to do everything I can to help in the reform of the system. That reform is so desperately needed. The leader of the D-day effort, GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower called the invasion of Normandy ``a fight in which we would accept nothing less than full victory.'' It is in that spirit that I call upon my Senate colleagues to immediately take up and pass this legislation on behalf of our veterans and then to continue the work of changing the culture of the VA so that we don't have to come back years from now and repeat this process all over again. Let's get it right this time. The fight to restore trust to our veterans is one we are waging, and to paraphrase General Eisenhower, we should accept nothing less than victory. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, last week, the Senate confirmed Sylvia Burwell as our new Secretary of Health and Human Services. She is now the administration's main implementer and representative of ObamaCare. She is its new face and will be its primary salesperson to the American people. I think the President made a competent choice, and I supported her confirmation. But I would be remiss if I did not mention or bring to light the difficult job she has ahead of her. From its botched website to ever increasing premiums, to canceled health insurance plans, ObamaCare has been and remains a complicated mess of broken promises and confusing implementation. I was back home in Indiana last weekend and the weekend before that, and ObamaCare, along with complaints about overregulation, remain the top two issues on people's minds. On Friday, I was in DeKalb County and Noble County up in northeast Indiana meeting with representatives of those two counties and communities and across the spectrum of people engaged in various business enterprises--housewives, small businesses, big businesses, elected officials, et cetera. In each of those discussions, as I went across those two counties, as I said, overregulation and ObamaCare were No. 1 and No. 2, or vice versa, on everyone's mind. It continues to remain on their minds because they see this as a very complicated and messy intrusion into their individual lives in terms of their ability to run their businesses. For many, it is not a question of ObamaCare not hurting them, but how it has hurt them and their concerns about how it is going to hurt them in the future. The President promised us that this plan--quote ``will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government.'' Let me repeat that. The President said that ObamaCare would lower the cost of health care--which it hasn't--for our families, our businesses, and our government. That is not what I have heard as I talk to people across the State of Indiana. What I hear from Hoosiers is their premiums have increased, they have higher health care costs, their deductibles have risen dramatically, their copays have risen, and they have fewer provider options. Remember what the President said: If like your doctor or your health plan, you can keep it, period. That is not the case, and I hear that from hundreds of Hoosiers as I travel around the State. Let me speak about a specific story from a constituent, Jeremy, from Randolph County, who said this: My plan for my wife and two kids, ages 2 and 5, just increased $150 to $615 per month. We cannot afford this massive hike! He went on to say: Something must be done to lower these plans because we are seriously going to think about not being able to have insurance for the first time since college because I simply can't afford it. It is unaffordable. The ACA, the so-called Affordable Care Act, has been called unaffordable by so many Hoosiers--and I suspect that is true all around the country--that it ought to be the unaffordable care act and not the Affordable Care Act. I don't know how many stories we have to bring to the floor of the Senate before my colleagues understand and realize this plan is faulty to the point that it needs to be replaced. It is deeply and fatally flawed at its very core. I know the majority leader came to the floor and said none of these stories we have related are true. That is like telling Jeremy he doesn't exist. I don't think he made this up: My plan for my wife and kids has just increased $150 a month to $615 a month. It is unaffordable. Americans across the country are repeating these stories. They are not made up. It is not something Republicans sits around and write in the back room and sends out that says: Here, say this, so we can repeat it on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate floor. These are concerned citizens sending by the thousands emails, phone calls, tweets, and any other means of communication. They are speaking to us directly when we go back home, whether I am in the grocery store buying a quart of milk, picking up a newspaper at the gas station, just speaking to people on the street, or when I sit down with business people. We have invited them to various small towns in Indiana. As I said, these stories that are coming from real people I represent--and they sent me here to represent them--is the impact of the health care plan that has been proposed by the President and now is being implemented. So all of the promises that were made early on--but it wasn't in force--have now been proven to be untrue. Don't just take my word for it. Look at the headlines. Reuters, which I don't think is an arm of the Republican Senatorial Committee or the Republican National Committee, and is an independent newspaper says: ``U.S. says 2.2 million ObamaCare enrollees have data problems.'' CNBC--the last time I heard they weren't making contributions to the Republican Party either: ``Seven in 10 people say ObamaCare had bad or zero impact on U.S.'' Either nothing--no impact or bad impact--that is 70 percent. Indianapolis Business Journal, to which I pay attention, and an independent organization: ``Indiana's ObamaCare rates for 2015 all over the map.'' People can't figure out how much they are going to have to pay next year, but they have figured out one thing. It is going to be more than they paid last year. Remember the statement ``premiums won't go up?'' It won't go up a penny? I think many of us think it is time to start over and replace ObamaCare with real health care solutions. Republicans have offered a multitude of possibilities of suggestions and proposals, every one of which has been turned down by the President or not allowed to be brought to the floor by the Senate majority leader. There are those who say: What would you do? Why don't you suggest something? We have tried our very best to bring forward packages of reforms, to reach across the aisle and say, if you will work with us, we will try to fix some of these problems. We think we should repeal it and start over because we don't think it is the right model for health care, to address the solution of providing people in this country with adequate health care at a reasonable cost. So changing the face of ObamaCare by just putting in a new Secretary of Health and Human Services will not change this law's negative impact on Hoosiers such as Jeremy. I wish it would, but, obviously, it won't. It will not change this disaster of a law into what it should be: Better health care for all Americans. We are all committed to that goal, but we are simply saddled with a piece of legislation that was very poorly drafted, that was rushed through without any support or comments from those of us on the other side of the aisle. I wasn't here at the time. One of the reasons I ran and came back was to try to address what I thought was legislation taking us down a road to a dysfunctional health care system, with less quality, less access, less choice, less competition. Is there a need to reform this current health care system? Yes. Are there solutions that are better than what has been put before us? Yes. I wish we could summon the support and the will of those in this body to begin addressing that very problem. Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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