Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this last fall Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy embarked upon a national listening tour to gather feedback on possible new energy regulations that could be ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory power. Notably absent from her tour across the Nation were the major coal- producing or user States. Now, my State of Indiana was notably absent from that despite our request that she listen to what Hoosiers had to say about their source of energy, what it does for the state's economy, how it helps attract jobs to our State, and how it helps our residents to keep utility bills in line. So we were very disappointed that we were not included in that listening tour. Other States, surprisingly--or maybe not surprisingly-- which are also coal-producing energy States were also bypassed. Apparently, they didn't want to hear from us. I think on Monday we found out exactly why it was done that way, because in the latest installment of the administration's ongoing ``war on coal'' as it is described, Administrator McCarthy announced that the EPA is putting forward new rules on existing fossil fuel powerplants. These new proposed regulations are essentially an energy tax that will damage our national economy as well as the economy of Indiana and hike electric bills for every Hoosier. As the seventh highest coal-producing State in the Nation, Indiana relies on coal-fired electricity to meet well over 80 percent of its energy needs. Our industry provides thousands of jobs and contributes three-quarters of a billion dollars to the Indiana economy. Because of this, the EPA proposed rule will place a choke hold on Indiana's primary and most affordable energy source, driving up utility costs, and putting our State at a disadvantage in competing with other States to lure companies and to attract residents. It is worth noting that the EPA's announcement ignores the progress the utility industry has made in recent years, and, in fact, in recent decades. Energy providers in Indiana and across the country have spent billions of dollars to control air pollution that has resulted in significant declines in emissions. In fact, we have significantly cleaned our air and water through environmental regulation and through capital investment to produce an environment that is the envy of many nations. This has been done at a competitive disadvantage to our companies, because we are competing in a global economy and we know that nations such as China and India and others have not made the same commitment that Americans have in controlling their emissions. We have also been a leader in Indiana in reclamation and restoration on the mining front. So those who say it is a desecration of the land to extract coal need to come and see what we have done in terms of reclamation. Instead of barren hillsidesbarren of grass and trees, you will find lush pastures and scenic views where you would never have known mining had taken place. Penalizing Hoosier energy producers with unattainable environmental restrictions, I believe, is the wrong approach. In effect it is a backdoor way for unelected bureaucrats to impose regulations similar to the cap-and- trade scheme previously pushed by the White House. Not only did a totally Democratic-controlled Congress fail to pass this similar proposal in 2010, I think it is clear that there will not even be 50 votes for the EPA's proposed regulations in the Senate today, much less the 60 votes required for passage. I think the President realizes this. So what does he do? He bypasses Congress, which I think is an unconstitutional means of enforcing what ought to be done through legislation--debated and passed by those who are elected and are responsible to the people who elected them--and bypasses that by essentially moving it to an agency and saying: You do it by rulemaking. Then unelected bureaucrats make the decisions that we ought to be making in this Congress. This is not the first time that one country has had to limit one type of energy to the detriment of economic growth and the pocketbooks of hard-working families. These new sweeping rules on coal-fired powerplants brought to mind my friends in Western Europe. As U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, I had a front row seat for the similar transition away from fossil fuels that most Germans now regret. When the German legislature passed a renewable energy law in 2000, Germany gave solar and wind producers 20 years of fixed high prices and preferable access to the country's electricity grid. Following a fashionable green wave of the moment, the main political parties in Germany reached a hasty decision to phase out all 17 of that country's nuclear power plants. German leaders vowed to eliminate clean nuclear power while simultaneously aiming to reduce carbon emissions from 80 to 95 percent by 2050. These overly ambitious and seemingly contradictory targets they said would be achieved by an extravagant government plan to encourage the development of renewable energy production methods. Under the plan the so-called ``energiewende'' or ``energy transition'' renewables, mostly solar and wind, would supply--they said--80 percent of Germany's electricity and 60 percent of the country's total energy requirements. If those goals look impossible, it is because it has been impossible for them to reach and they realize that. Germany's ongoing subsidization of alternative energy means Germans pay significantly higher prices for energy than the global average, putting their industries at a competitive disadvantage. Their consumers pay some of the highest electric rates in the world. Earlier this year the German government revealed that nearly 7 million families--and they only have 80 million in the country--are in ``energy poverty,'' meaning they have to receive major subsidies from the government in order to pay their electric bills. Today German citizens and their businesses and manufacturing entities complain loudly about these extra costs that Americans and most other European nations do not face. It has triggered a potential crisis from an economic standpoint. Companies are threatening to move offshore, elsewhere in Europe or to the United States or to other places. Users and residents are complaining loudly about the fact that they are subsidizing an unworkable plan. While the government subsidies finance inefficient technologies and the government obsesses about emissions goals, Germany has ramped up its coal use, ironically, to 45 percent of total electricity generation. Think about this for a minute. A government plan to mandate and subsidize alternative energy sources, to close their nuclear plants, to cease using coal-fired plants to provide power has now put Germany in a situation where 45 percent of its energy is provided by the import of coal--high sulfur coal with high emissions, because that is what burns the hottest. Now the question here is: Can we learn some lessons from this? What we are embarking on here essentially is a plan very similar to what has already been tried and failed. This is a cost too high for our economy in the United States. Without a course correction, I think President Obama's war on coal will receive the same results as Germany's or perhaps even worse, higher prices and real potential for electricity supply disruptions. I talked to a number of the electric companies that derive from coal a source of energy that provides a very reliable base load. Base load is what you absolutely have to have to keep the lights on and to run the factories and to keep energy flowing. Their concern is that the current plan will disrupt that base load to the point where we cannot guarantee energy will reach homes at a time when a polar vortex has put people at subzero freezing temperatures or when the temperatures climbs to triple digits during the summer. These baseloads cannot be reached by turning windmills, and many days--particularly in my State and others--the Sun is not shining. That is not a dependable source for providing the baseload that is necessary, particularly at times of stress on the system. President Obama has often seen elements of European socialism as something he would like to impose on Americans. Well, this is one time when I think the President should learn from European socialism and European mistakes and avoid duplicating the situation in Germany by simply letting proven energy providers do their jobs and produce the energy that is needed. Once again, I have to say the United States has a pretty commendable record of addressing the issues of emissions. We all want clean air, we all want clean water, and we all want to have a safe environment for ourselves, our children, and the future. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent over the years trying to control those emissions, and we have a pretty good record. Can we go farther? Absolutely. Can we do more? Absolutely. Can we put ourselves on a much more sustainable path to a cleaner environment with less emissions? Absolutely. But setting a mandatory number in terms of percentage and a mandatory deadline in terms of reaching something that has proven to be unreachable and threatens our ability to provide sustained energy to our businesses and residents is something we need to take careful assessment of before we rush into arbitrarily setting a rule that bypasses the debate that would take place in Congress, bypasses the positions of our elected Members of this Congress, and done through a process the Constitution has established in terms of how we make decisions. I urge my colleagues and the President to take a second look at what the possible consequences could be. It is nothing but pie in the sky, ideologically driven rules and regulations that are driving this. We have a model of a major industrial nation that has taken similar steps and has seen those steps fail. Again, I urge my colleagues to look very carefully at what is happening through this proposed rule, and I trust we will be able to effectively address this situation in a responsible and reasonable way. I see my colleague from Tennessee is prepared to remark on perhaps this or something else, but there is probably no one better suited to talk about alternative energy and its consequences than my colleague Senator Alexander. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what is the current status of the floor?

Mr. COATS. I ask to be recognized for part of that time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, citizens of Indiana sent me to Washington to be their voice. As I travel across the State and listen--whether at coffee shops or factories, small businesses, local schools or people on the street--I hear a lot of good advice about what they think we ought to be doing. There are regulations and taxes and policies being imposed on their businesses and their personal lives. They would like to see some changes, some reforms. Many of their ideas are very sensible because what we do affects their livelihoods. That is what the Senate is all about. That is why we have a Congress. That is why we have representatives--so we can represent the voices of the people who sent us--but right now Republicans, as we are in the minority, are being shut out of our ability to represent their voices. The tradition of the Senate since its inception has been a place described as ``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' A place where we can take time to deliberate ideas, reforms, to be able to offer amendments to legislation brought forward, to talk to our colleagues and encourage bipartisan support, work to achieve a majority so the ideas we bring can be passed into law--coordinated with the House and sent to the President to sign and become law. A strange thing has happened under the current leadership of our majority leader; that is, he has found a way to procedurally gag us from representing the voice of the people of our States. In the last 10 months, Republicans have been offered a vote on the substitute policy measure or amendment to a policy measure only nine times. I had the great privilege of serving in the Senate at a previous time in my life. I had committed to term limits. So after my two terms were fulfilled, I honored those term limits and stepped down. I was out for 12 years. I was asked to come back at a time when many thought our country was going in the wrong direction, and they wanted a voice to stand for their interests and feelings about what our country ought to be and the kind of policies we ought to have enacted. I had the great fortune of being sent back to serve this Senate, only to find, to my shock and amazement, that under the procedures used by the majority leader, this is no longer the greatest deliberative body. It has turned into the least deliberative body because we haven't been able to deliberate anything. I have served under Republican and Democratic majority leaders: Senator Mitchell, a Democratic majority leader; Senator Daschle, a Democratic majority leader; Trent Lott and Bob Dole, Republican majority leaders. Whether Republican or Democratic, they honored the traditions of the Senate. They honored what the Senate was designed to be. No one was more eloquent in allowing the minority to play a role, to offer amendments to bills, to debate those bills, and to vote-- sometimes we won, sometimes we lost, but we at least had an opportunity for our voices to be heard and for our colleagues to cast their yea or to cast their nay on what we were offering. No one was a greater defender of those minority rights than then-majority leader Robert Byrd from West Virginia. Robert Byrd is lionized here in terms of his long service and remembered most for the fact that he was so faithful to the Constitution of the United States and so faithful to the traditions of the Senate, the rules of the Senate, and the procedures of the Senate. Whether one was a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, no one was a greater defender of the traditions of the Senate allowing full and open debate than Robert Byrd. I had many disagreements with Robert Byrd but great respect for his respect for this institution. We don't see that today. There is no Robert Byrd here. There is no one standing on the other side saying: Wait a minute. This is not what we are here for. The procedures the majority leader has undertaken affect Democrats as well as Republicans. I know many of my friends across the aisle--some of them are cosponsors of some of the legislation proposals and amendment proposals I have made--they are not allowed to offer their amendments either. We are frozen out by someone who has taken a dictatorial position, saying: It is my way or the highway. We see that foreign policy enacted now coming out of Russia with Vladimir Putin, but that is not what the United States is about. That is not what the Senate of the United States is about. We are a democratic institution. A democratic institution means voices of the people can be heard. The voices of the people I represent are not being heard because I can come down here and talk about my amendments, but I am not allowed the opportunity to have full debate and a vote on those amendments. The same is true for my 44 colleagues on the Republican side. It is unprecedented. It has never happened before. It is dictatorial. Even the news media are scratching their heads, saying: We have never seen this before. It is a tragedy that this is the case. Here we are coming up to yet another major piece of legislation, the so-called tax extenders. These are provisions within the Tax Code that allow certain exemptions or credits or special provisions--for instance, research and development. There is a deduction allowed, bonus depreciation for businesses, any number of things that we are going to be talking about that need to be legislated because they expire at the end of this year. Normally we would have open debate from those of us who support some of those, from those of us who oppose some of those, and what changes might be made. In the end, that debate turns to a vote, and the vote determines where the Senate stands. I know some of the things I would be proposing may not be passed by the Senate, but I would like to put it to the test. I would like to have my colleagues have an opportunity to not only hear what they were but to vote on them, let their yea be yea and nay be nay. That is a Biblical injunction that goes back to the beginning of time: Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no. But don't use procedural devices to prevent us from going to yes or going to no. I will mention three provisions I would like to see incorporated in, debated, and voted on in this legislation coming before us. We will find out shortly, but we are told that once again the majority leader will come down and say: I am not allowing Republicans to offer any amendments, even if they are sensible, even if they are reasonable, even if they are relevant. That is a repetitive process which has been undertaken, and it is tragic, it is unfortunate, and it is not the Senate. We all ought to be ashamed that this is the procedure we are operating under. I want to help Indiana charities. There are a number of small charities--individuals or small groups of individuals with a big heart trying to do the right thing and reach out and provide support. As the Federal Government budget is ever shrinking because of our debt and deficit and runaway entitlement spending, much less for other spending that we have control over, these charities have found themselves somewhat in a bind. Some of them are small. They don't have the backroom, the accountants, the lawyers, and so forth and so on to read through all the regulations. Many of them have lost their nonprofit status for a very simple reason that can be easily corrected. There are certain procedures which require certain amounts of information to be provided to the Internal Revenue Service. If it is not provided, the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to close down those charities. Many of them have not realized that this certain amount of information needs to be provided on an annual basis. All of a sudden they get a notice in the mail that their 501(c)(3) or tax-exempt status has been revoked. Then they call my office and ask: What is going on here? The IRS says you didn't comply with all the regulations. What regulations? These people are not making a profit. They are trying to provide social services and needed help to the low-income, poverty, people in need. They don't have the expertise, they don't have the time, they don't have the understanding of what it takes to comply with all of the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations. All I am asking with this amendment--and it seems something everybody would agree to and we could do by unanimous consent--is that the IRS notify these people with a special notification basically saying: This is what you haven't complied with. You have a certain amount of time to do this or we will have to take away your tax-exempt status. Some of these things are no-brainers. Can we ask the IRS to simply send a notice if they are going to terminate a 501(c)(3) because they didn't fulfill a particular regulation? Can we give them notice so they then can take it to their tax accountant or take whatever actions it needs in order to meet the test and not lose that status? Losing that status means they are out of business. They are not able to receive contributions that are tax deductible. Many of them will lose that. The ObamaCare bill incorporates a provision that increases the threshold over which someone can deduct medical expenses. Currently, it is 7.5 percent of total adjusted gross income. The ObamaCare health care law, unbeknownst to many, raised that level from 7.5 percent to 10 percent. I am simply wanting to offer an amendment that would go back to the status quo or go back to the current law and keep it at 7.5 percent. I believe that could gather and garner bipartisan support. I would like to put that for a vote. Third is a medical device tax repeal which I have been talking about ad nauseam for 3 years. One of the most egregious things in the ObamaCare act was the taxing of gross sales in an industry that is dynamic, provides high-paying jobs, and is leading edge in terms of innovation and creativity, and providing much needed help for those who have health conditions that can be addressed through certain medical devices. I know we have bipartisan support for the passage of this provision and this repeal because in our nonbinding budget vote--the chance when we did have the vote--34 Democrats joined 45 Republicans for a total of 79 out of 100. That is a majority that overrides a veto, and that is a majority of bipartisan--near consensus--as to how we ought to move forward. Yet once again we have been denied despite every effort over a period of years by the majority leader from having a binding vote on that. Clearly someone is afraid that this is going to pass. Therefore on a decision solely made by the majority leader, perhaps encouraged by the President, we are not even allowed an opportunity to take that vote. So the voice of the people--whether it is Indiana or the voice of the people from this country--is being gagged, and there is a big gag put on everything that we are trying to do here. I got pretty worked up about this yesterday. I guess I have calmed down a little bit today, maybe going from total frustration yesterday to pleading with some sense of reason that the procedures here could be changed so that we at least have the opportunity to state our case and to take a vote. That is all we are asking for on this--these tax extender provisions coming before us. We are willing to address and offer a limited number of totally relevant amendments. Give us the chance to make our case. Take the vote and let the yea be yea and the nay be nay on it and see who prevails on it. Yet the word is that the majority leader once again is going to deny us this opportunity. It is more than tragic because it turns this institution which was venerated for being a deliberative body into a nondeliberative body. None of us ever thought we would see this happen. As I said, had Robert Byrd been here or had George Mitchell been here or had a number of other people been here, they never would have allowed this. This is not what the Senate has been traditionally, and it is something today that none of us recognize and it is just a shame. I am not exactly sure how we should best go forward now that the majority leader is apparently going to stifle our efforts. There are very important provisions here that need to be addressed because they expire at the end of the year. I see my colleague Senator Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, with whom I have worked on comprehensive tax reform. These provisions today are essential to our moving to where we really need to go, and that is full comprehensive reform--lowering our corporate tax rate, lowering our individual tax rates, and making our Tax Code simpler and more fair and more growth oriented. Those are the provisions of the Wyden-Coats bill. We have to move with that; we have to deal with this first. But we need to deal with this in a way that doesn't leave a lot of rancor and a lot of frustration on our side that we haven't had an opportunity to have a voice in the matter. So once again, I am pleading with the Senate majority leader and my colleagues on other side of the aisle that we work to find a way to turn the Senate back into the Senate. What are we afraid of? Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair, if the Senator from Oregon would be willing to enter into a dialogue with me. I have a couple of questions, but I also want to respond to the efforts he has made in a bipartisan way so we were able to move forward with this comprehensive reform.

Mr. COATS. First of all, it has been a delight to work with the Senator from Oregon. Comprehensive tax reform is not easy, and it has not happened in 25 years. This is not what we are talking about today. But we are setting the stage for that, and I think that is important. I agree with the Senator from Oregon when he spoke about the bipartisan product that came out of committee. It has been negotiated, and Members of the committee had an opportunity to make adjustments and get their provisions looked at and voted on. Some provisions were voted down and some were voted up. Now it has moved to the Senate floor, and there are those of us who don't serve on that committee that have some suggestions as to how we think we can make the bill even better. I laid out three provisions that I am interested in. One addition I have for the bill is a very simple piece of legislation that would give notice to charities that are being terminated from their 501(c)3 tax exempt status so they have a chance to rectify the error or problem. I feel that is very sensible and totally relevant. Yet I am prohibited-- unless the majority leader comes forward and allows us to offer amendments--from offering that specific provision. We all know there are many good things in here we support. There are some provisions we might agree on and other provisions we don't support, but all we are asking for is the opportunity to enter into the procedure that the Senator and I have both enjoyed in the past so we can debate some of this on the floor. Could the Senator give me an indication as to whether or not they have shut down the process of any additions, modifications or reforms to this bill that we can have a vote on? I know the Senator knows this, but I have to say that obviously people are not going to get these higher taxes imposed on them tomorrow if we don't pass this today. These provisions will expire at the end of the year. The House is on a different path in terms of dealing with these issues. We are going to have to reconcile the differences. The real issue doesn't take effect--I mean the concern doesn't take effect until the end of the year. So that gives us plenty of time to debate and talk about reforms as well as some constructive additions that I have mentioned. I ask my friend from Oregon this. Would he be willing to encourage the majority leader to offer us that opportunity to make some relevant--and hopefully constructive--adjustments, even a limited amount, to the legislation so we feel we at least had the opportunity to represent the voices of the people we represent here in Washington?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the accolades from my partner in dealing with comprehensive tax reform. I appreciate and understand where he is trying to come from. It is true that some of the amendments that have been proposed don't directly apply to the extenders, but they do apply to taxes, and they are sensible. If the majority leader would agree, we can limit it to those that directly apply to the extenders. Look, everyone knows that even if the majority leader prevents us from having amendments, we are going to finish this bill by the end of next week--before the recess period. We are not talking about: Do it today or it is a ``done forever'' situation. This is going to be resolved in the Senate within the next several business days, probably moving into next week. All we are really asking for is the opportunity to make some improvements to this. There are some Members who say: I can't vote for this bill because this piece that the committee has agreed to is so egregious, and it overwhelms all the good that I see in it. Others will simply say: Well, OK, sometimes you have to take the less good--perfect being the enemy of the good--because it is the only way we can get to a bipartisan position. So, yes, I will lean forward even though I object to this particular provision. But at least they can say: I had the opportunity to make the point to my colleagues as to why certain provisions are in there. I can ask: Why is something that is this egregious? This doesn't fit the model of what we are looking for in terms of growth and innovation and sensible tax policy. Let's put that to a vote. In the end we will still have a bill that will either have it in or out, but we will have had the opportunity to debate it with our colleagues, and not just simply carte blanche say: Here is what we decided in committee. By doing that, nobody else will have an opportunity to have their input in a way that they think will make it better. Let's put these issues up for a vote. Let's debate it on both sides so we can ask: How did it get in there? Why did it get in there? What good does it do? If they can't make the case, they lose the vote. If they make the case, they win the vote. Isn't that what we are here for? Aren't we here to make our case and put it to a vote so the American people can look at it and say: At least I know how my Senator voted on this particular issue which is very important to me. When we go home, we can either defend our vote successfully or we don't. If we don't, and enough people think we are on the wrong track, they have the opportunity to go to the polls and send somebody else in place of us. What are my colleagues afraid of? Are they afraid of taking any kind of vote that someone back home might not think is the right thing to do? We were sent here to exercise our best judgment, to represent the people who sent us here, to stand up for their interests, and then to take the consequence at the next election--yea or nay. Either they will send us back or they will find someone else to stand here. The gag rule imposed by the majority leader--not my friend from Oregon--simply says: You are in the minority. You didn't win the election; therefore, you have no rights. Despite what the Senate has done for over 200 years, and despite what other Democratic leaders have honored in terms of the rights of the Senate, the majority leader is saying: I am shutting all of that off. You have no rights. You can't offer any amendments. You can't offer any improvements to this bill. We were taught from the beginning--in terms of how laws are made-- that it is a process, and the process is that everybody gets their input and then we decide what we want to support. If you can cobble together a majority for supporting your issue, you end up winning. All of this will be determined here in the next week. A vote today in protest of our inability to be gagged and shut down by the majority leader doesn't mean we are opposed to good provisions that my colleague from Oregon has said have bipartisan and nearly unanimous consent. The vote today is about whether we are going to have the opportunity to say and do anything to make this a better bill and allow us an opportunity to have our input. I listed three items here that I think directly relates to taxes. If the parliamentarian determines that those are not relevant to the particular bill, I will accept that even if I think they are relevant. My colleagues will also accept that. We are tailoring items we think will go directly to what the issue of the day is; yet we are not offered the opportunity to do anything about it. I cannot understand why my Democratic colleagues can't see the injustice and unfairness of that. If they were in the minority, they would be standing where I am and basically making the same point. How can Republicans conceivably say: I have been elected here, but I have no way of representing the voice of the people who sent me here. I have no way of offering a means of improving this bill or taking on something that I find totally egregious, but I am willing to accept how the vote turns out. I am not necessarily trying to stop the bill from going forward, but I am trying to make it better. I think if the shoe was on the other foot, my colleagues would simply say: That is not the way the Senate is supposed to work. That is not why I came here. I came here to be a participant. I didn't come here to be told by the majority leader that I have no right to offer a relevant amendment to legislation that is before us. It is a total neuterization of the minority rights in a body that was conceived by our Founders-- and a tradition that has been held for more than 200 years--to be a deliberative body. Deliberative doesn't mean the majority leader walks over from his office and says: You have no right to offer an amendment. We are taking that right away from you. Deliberative means we stand and talk to each other as we just did. It is pretty rare for two of us to be on the same page on comprehensive tax reform and probably on the extenders, but the two of us have the chance to go back and forth with each other. I know the time has run out and it is time to call for a vote. No one should mistake a vote against this as a vote against tax extenders. It could be a protest. I am not sure where we will end up, but it could be a protest vote on the basis of the fact that we want to have our rights honored. We want to be able to participate. We want to be able to go home and say: I had a chance to take your voice to the Senate and debate it. It was voted on. It either passed or it didn't pass, but I gave it everything I had. I don't want to go home and say: I didn't have a chance to even raise my voice on behalf of your voice and achieve any kind of debate, deliberation or vote on this amendment. That is not why we are sent here. My Democratic colleagues need to understand that continuing to support what the majority leader is doing impacts their rights and their people's rights as much as it does ours. With that I know the time has expired and I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. COATS. We yield back time as well.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business study, ObamaCare and its tax increases will result in the reduction of up to 285,000 private sector jobs. Let's say they are wrong. Let's say they are exaggerating. After all, the NFIB has not exactly been supportive of ObamaCare. Let's say it is 250,000 or 225,000. Let's say it is 200,000. I think that any piece of legislation that causes one job to be lost is something we should take a second look at, let alone 285,000 jobs. Even though the administration has moved the goalpost more than 20 times in terms of how Obamacare is enacted, it clearly has hurt far more than it has helped. The majority leader famously said that all the stories that have been stated on this floor have been horror stories that are not true, but these are real stories. These are people who have contacted my office and talked to me personally. They have written letters and sent emails. They are simply saying: Here is my experience. Once in a while I come to the floor so I can verbalize the experiences of the people I represent. Kelly from Fort Wayne, IN, received a letter from her insurance company that said her provider would change her policy due to the Affordable Care Act. Her new policy failed to cover her lifesaving medication, increasing her monthly costs by over 400 percent compared to what she had paid with her previous plan. She said: What am I supposed to do? This medication I have is lifesaving. It is no longer covered by my insurance plan. And the insurance company has indicated that this is the result of the implementation of ObamaCare. Bruce from Jasper, IN, had to drop his insurance policy and enroll in a new plan that increased his monthly premium by 70 percent. Bruce said: I can't afford this. I am paying a lot of money already. Seventy percent. I thought the President said this won't cost me a penny more, period. I am sure the President regrets using ``period'' because period means final, no discussion, no debate--trust me, you won't have to pay one penny more. I talked to Bruce in Jasper, and he is paying 70 percent more. Traveling across Indiana, I hear these stories from Hoosiers over and over, men and women business owners who are reducing hours, laying off hard-working employees, or closing the doors because of this law's costly requirements. Most importantly, they are very seriously considering dropping any employer-offered coverage whatsoever. They are reducing their workforce, if it is possible, to below 29 hours a workweek so they don't have to provide insurance. At one national chain, they have stated publicly that they have put all of their thousands of employees on 29-hour workweek schedules so they don't have to subject them to the restrictions imposed upon them under the ObamaCare act. I don't know how many of these stories we have to share before we try to make some reforms, replacements, or find positive solutions to the problems we face. Republicans have met in caucus. We have some alternatives. We would like to have them considered. This leads me to my second point. It is clear now that we are not going to be allowed to offer any solutions, any reforms, any changes to any legislation as long as we are here in this session of Congress. We have been allowed nine amendments in the last 10 months. The minority in the House of Representatives has been allowed to offer over 125 amendments in the last 10 months. People are saying: Wait a minute, I thought in the House the majority rules. They have a Rules Committee. They decide that maybe they will get one amendment or two amendments. Don't expect to be able to offer amendments if you are in the minority in the House of Representatives. They say: We won the election. We are the majority. That is how the House works. I served in the House. I served in the minority for 8 years. I am trying to remember if I was ever allowed amendments. Sometimes our caucus was allowed an amendment. I came to the Senate and people asked: What is the difference? I said: The difference is night and day. Any Senator can offer any amendment to any bill at any time. Then Democratic majority leader, George Mitchell, was following a precedent that had lasted for more than 200 years. The greatest deliberative body in the world deliberated. And, yes, we were here late hours in the evenings sometimes when a Member said: Wait a minute, I have one more amendment. That person was allowed to offer that amendment. We spent many nights into the dark hours working through a bill, but the process worked. That was honored by Republican leaders and Democratic leaders. Only now, at this second iteration of mine--it seems like a bad dream, actually--do we have a leader who has basically said: I am not allowing you any amendments. I don't want to force any votes. That is not what the Senate was designed to be. That is not what it has been traditionally. Yet here we are facing yet another piece of legislation that looks the same as every other piece of legislation we have been faced with this year. The majority leader will use a procedure called filling the tree. The majority leader is using procedures to shut down the minority, to gag us. It is a gag order by the majority leader. He is basically saying: You don't have the privilege under my leadership of representing the people in your State who voted for you to come here to offer their wishes and their desires and amendments to reform a piece of legislation. I am not giving you that opportunity. That is what the majority leader is saying over and over. Now, if a Member is in the majority, I suppose he or she can get their changes modified and moved into the bill that the majority leader brings to the floor. But then he turns to the other side and says: You don't count, none of you. All 45 of you, all 45 Republican Senators here, don't count. This is a Senate run by 55 people under the dictatorship of the current majority leader, who simply has thrown a gag order on any Republican because they are afraid to debate and vote on measures they think might negatively impact them, even though they are many times bipartisan-led amendments--amendments supported by Members on the other side of the aisle. We said: OK, he is turning down anything we offer, but what if we offered it with the support of a Member from the other side? He turns that down too, so he shuts down his own Members. It is beyond my comprehension, having served here before and seen the Senate under the leadership of Democratic leaders who caused this body to function in a way where everybody had a voice. We didn't always win our amendments. We were in the minority. We mostly lost our amendments, but we had a chance to offer them. We had a chance to debate them and to try to persuade Members to join us. Sometimes we were fortunate to persuade those Members. Other times they were bills and amendments fashioned together with Democrats and Republicans, brought to the floor in tandem, voted on, and passed, and they were constructive changes. Today, it is, shut up, sit down, don't offer amendments, I am not giving you anything. It defies the history of this place, the tradition of this place, and it has turned us into the world's least deliberative body, not the most deliberative body. There is no deliberation here. It appears the only way to change this is for the voters to go to the polls and say: Let's get the Senate back to what it is supposed to be. Let's get to a place where we are not afraid to stand up and take a stand. Let's not be afraid to consider amendments and to say if it passes, it passes, and if it loses, it loses, but at least Members had the opportunity to state their positions and the opportunity to represent the wishes of the people who sent us here. We are sitting around here being able to do nothing--nothing--because the majority leader said: You are in the minority. I am running this place. It is a one-man show. I am throwing a gag order over all of you, and we are shutting it down. Now we are coming to the tax extenders. There are good provisions in the bill, there are mediocre provisions, and there are some that probably shouldn't be in there. But shouldn't this be debated? This impacts our economy and impacts our future. There are many things in the tax extenders bill that is coming before us--including research credits and other things that stimulate the economy--some that I think are good and some things that I think are bad. Shouldn't we have the opportunity to try to support the good or eliminate the bad or at least make an effort at that? Yet once again it hasn't happened yet. The pattern has been laid. The majority leader will say: No, you are not going to have any amendments. We are going to shut this down, and you are going to do it our way. Apparently, that is the way the majority leader has decided he is going to run the Senate. He makes all kinds of false excuses as to why he has to do what he does, but none of them hold water. I regret that. I think it has turned this place into a dysfunctional body, and I think the burden of responsibility for that falls directly on the shoulders of the majority leader. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, all 100 of us, Republicans and Democrats, are concerned about our fellow citizens who are unemployed, struggling to pay their bills, and desperate to find meaningful work. We are concerned about the lack of opportunities in many of America's communities and the urgent need for more good-paying jobs across the United States. There are Hoosiers and citizens across this country hurting in this economy, and it seems as though a new negative economic headline comes out every day. Consider some of the recent discouraging reports we have heard. According to a new USA Today/Pew research poll, Americans by a 2-to-1 margin rate the Nation's economic conditions as poor, and just 27 percent say there are enough jobs available where they live. A few days ago, the Commerce Department estimated that between January and March of this year, the U.S. economy grew a shocking 0.1 percent. That is .1 percent from no growth whatsoever and just .2 percent from racking up a first quarter of recession. It takes two quarters back to back to qualify for recession, but we are in the recovery period from one of the deepest recessions since World War II. Now we are into the fifth year, close to the sixth year, of a stagnant economy growing at half the rate it normally does after a recession, and Americans are still out of work. In addition, the U.S. labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in 36 years. Not since the days of Jimmy Carter has such a low percentage of Americans been in the workforce. In fact, another shocking headline: Over 800,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force last month alone. Let me say that again. Over 800,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force in just 1 month-- 800,000. That is enough people to fill Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, home of Super Bowl XLVI and the Indianapolis Colts, one dozen times. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calls many of these 800,000 ``discouraged workers,'' and they join over one-third of all working- age Americans no longer seeking work. It is not only those who are earnestly out there every day trying to find a job, any job, this is a staggering number of people who have simply given up, saying: It is not worth the effort; I can't find a job; the jobs simply are not there. Even those young Americans starting their careers, just entering the workforce, are not entering at the traditional level, the level which they are qualified for, have trained for or have been educated for. They are being forced to accept positions that they are overqualified for at wages way below what they expected to make after all their efforts preparing themselves through education and skills training to join the labor force in America. Given years of growth at half the expected level and high unemployment, it is not surprising but it is very disheartening to hear this news continue well into the fifth year after the recession. But rather than point fingers or assign blame, I am here today to seek, hopefully, a consensus that the Senate needs to propose, needs to debate, and needs to support measures that will increase economic growth and provide economic opportunity for those who are seeking to join the labor force. It is time for us to start talking about maximizing opportunity. Webster's dictionary defines opportunity as ``a good chance for advancement or progress.'' That is what American workers at all levels of skill and income deserve, but many of us have introduced our own ideas about job creation and economic growth. Earlier this year I put forward a detailed 10-point plan that I call The Indiana Way. Based on stories and suggestions from Hoosiers, these are commonsense solutions to some of our Nation's biggest problems. Many of my proposals incorporate ideas that have gained bipartisan support. We are not in the Senate arguing against each other, we are trying to find solutions, proposals, to debate together, to support together, and to move this country forward. The Indiana Way includes commonsense proposals to reform our broken Tax Code, reduce regulations that are crippling industries and business, unlock American energy sources, and support community banks, credit unions, and those who are providing the tools for investment and the tools for growth. I welcome the chance to discuss how these ideas will help Hoosiers and Americans who are struggling in this economy, and I know many of my colleagues are also eager for the opportunity to discuss and debate real solutions to help our workforce. There are a number of proposals that have been brought to this floor by my colleagues. Senator Portman, who sits at a desk next to me, and others have put forward meaningful proposals we ought to be debating. We shouldn't be talking about: Well, nothing is going to get done because it is an election year. We ought to set that aside and say for the sake of the future of this country and for all of those seeking work and don't have it, let's debate the real issues. Let's work together to pass something that will make our country stronger and our economy better. It was one of my former colleagues and friend Jack Kemp who once said: Our goals for this nation must be nothing less than to double the size of our economy and bring prosperity and jobs, ownership and equality of opportunity to all Americans, especially those living in our nation's pockets of poverty-- And especially those who are earnestly seeking work and simply can't find it. Today that goal remains worthy of our time and efforts. Let's join together and have a conversation about real solutions that will make our country stronger, improve the lives of all American citizens, and build a better future for the next generation. This should be our goal. This is the goal that should unite us, and it is long past time for us to get serious about it and take action. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, this is not easy for me to do, but I am going to do it in good grace here. I congratulate my colleague from Connecticut on The University of Connecticut's victory over the University of Notre Dame last night. He watched in joy and exuberance, and I watched in dismay. But I do want to congratulate the Senator and those from Connecticut for the singular achievement of having both men's and women's basketball championships. Those of us in Indiana are deeply immersed in the basketball culture. Statewide, we didn't have the best year or the kind of year we would have liked. But we were very proud of the University of Notre Dame women and the accomplishments they made--in an undefeated season until last evening. It probably is not politic for me to say this, but it is unfortunate that our all-American center, who was one of the keys to the success of the team, unfortunately had a knee injury which prevented her from playing. I am not saying we would have won had she played because I don't want to take anything away from the Huskies. On the other hand, I think it could have been a more contested contest had she been able to be a part of that. Either way, both teams deserve congratulations for the phenomenal seasons they had. It was a joy to watch from Indiana our Notre Dame women do so well, just as it was a joy for Senator Murphy to watch his men and women do so well. So I congratulate him for that. Russian Aggression Madam President, I rise to advocate for something obviously far more serious and threatening to us than basketball contests, and that is our response to Russia's recent unlawful takeover of Crimea. I urge, and continue to urge, the President as well as our colleagues in the Senate to take more vigorous action to deter further Russian aggression. As I speak, anxieties are building that Vladimir Putin's first big bite out of Ukraine has not satisfied him and he hungers for more. Many signs indicate Russian aggression threatens further incursions into Eastern Ukraine and possibly beyond. Troops are positioned on the border, logistics for an invasion are arranged, and the Russian propaganda machine is once again ginning up the excuses needed to justify unjustifiable actions. The only thing I can conclude is that the lack of an effective, forceful response by the United States and by our allies--particularly our European allies--has given President Putin reason to expect that further aggression will not be punished. Despite all the rhetoric, despite all the tough talk, very little has been done, and--with what little has been done--there has been no effect to deter and to condemn what has taken place and deter further aggression. From the beginning of this blatant act, I have waited for the administration to impose real costs on Russia for its illegal territorial aggression. So far, I have waited in vain. For the past month, in two separate resolutions which I have offered on the floor, several speeches, and numerous opinion columns I have written in the media, I have consistently attempted to make the case for hard-hitting sanctions on Russia. I joined Senator Durbin, my colleague from Illinois, to achieve a unanimous bipartisan passage of an initial list of sanctions which would signal to Putin that the Senate was unified in condemning and sanctioning Russia for its blatant takeover of Crimea. I stated at the time that this was an initial list and much tougher sanctions needed to come. But I wanted to give the administration time to fashion those, to work with our allies across the ocean and to stand strong for the type of hard-hitting, hard-biting economic sanctions which would make Russia pay a real price, as we had said we were going to do. The administration has to take the lead on economic sanctions because to implement the steps needed to ensure maximum effectiveness we need to coordinate with our friends and our allies. But I have seen little evidence that the administration is leading our European friends in the direction of such sanctions. I have not seen evidence that our European allies are willing to take the lead. I am therefore wondering if anyone is willing to take a lead in this effort. More needs to be done--and more needs to be done now. With Russian troops mounting their vehicles on the Ukrainian border, the United States should be using every means available to press for firm measures, and our European allies should be joining us in this cause. Those measures should include imposing serious costs so such behavior will not be repeated. Further, we should defend our allies and reassure them that we have their backs. We need to isolate Russia and prevent it from participating in organizations that give Putin credibility and strength. We should impose obstacles to prevent Russia from taking material advantage of their conquest, and we should convince other nations, businesses, and individuals to follow our lead. I think recent history shows that in conflict issues around the world, if the United States does not take a firm and a strong lead, other nations simply do not feel they have the strength or the backing to take that lead. So it is imperative the United States takes that lead, steered by our President, and supported by a bipartisan Congress to send a unified message that we are willing to address egregious breaches of international law and lead the way in doing so. The first task, as I see it, is to make sure we and others do not accept this aggression and annexation--what some others are already calling a fait accompli. Since the United States' refusal to recognize Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states 74 years ago, we have firmly and consistently refused to recognize such annexations. We must do the same in this case. Unfortunately, words and actions from this administration and from many of our European allies continue to focus on threatening consequences for future Russian incursions, rather than on the illegal annexation that has already taken place. It is exactly this reluctance to impose costs for the annexation of a portion of the Ukraine that paves the way for further Russian aggression. I sadly note that some of our best European friends are downplaying the importance of the invasion and annexation which have already taken place. Just as Chancellor Merkel from Germany was showing signs of a more forceful German foreign policy in defense of European territorial integrity, it now appears Germany is showing more interest in dialogue and restraint, backing down from the tough talk about making Russia pay a price for the actions it has taken. I am convinced there is very little reason to believe that further aggression will be adequately discouraged or punished. In this policy vacuum, if we don't find leadership from our administration or from the Europeans, I believe it is imperative that Congress act--and act now. So today, I am introducing yet another response in addition to those I have previously introduced addressing this situation in Ukraine. I will be introducing to the Senate the Crimea Annexation Non- Recognition Act--legislation which would mandate an official policy of not recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its land, airspace, waters, and resources. The purpose of this act is to ensure the United States will not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea nor take any action which would imply such recognition. Further, my bill imposes obstacles to Russian exploitation of Crimean resources by taking greater legal certainty about investing in Crimea, and it restricts foreign aid to countries which recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. I will illustrate some of the specific proposals I have introduced. First, establish firm policy that the United States Government does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its territory, airspace, and territorial waters, and may take no action that implies any recognition of Russian sovereignty. Second, prohibit the United States from financing or guaranteeing investments in Crimea with Russia as an intermediary. Third, oppose international financial institutions' assistance programs for Crimea that go through Russia as an intermediary. Fourth, require the Department of Justice to affirm this nonrecognition policy upon request, in order to create greater legal uncertainty for those who hope to contract with Russia for exploitation of Crimean resources. Fifth, deny entry to vessels sailing from Crimea with Russian customs documentation. Sixth, prohibit U.S. ships and aircraft from taking action that imply Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its airspace or territorial waters. And, seventh, prohibit some forms of foreign assistance to countries that recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. There are very few precedents in postwar history where a state has so boldly and aggressively used force against a neighbor for the purpose of territorial acquisition. What has happened in Crimea is a crime left over from an earlier age. We, together with our European friends, must move aggressively to oppose it before it becomes repetitive. At a time when so much depends on Vladmir Putin's unspoken plans, it is not hard to guess how he will respond to meekness. The American response must be much greater if we want Putin to understand that his actions in Ukraine are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I would suggest, Congress must refuse to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea by passing my legislation. I have proposed a number of sanctions which were added to other measures I have introduced and hopefully will convince this administration and our European allies to take a much tougher stance and provide much more of a penalty to Russia over the actions it has taken. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the vote that is about to occur on the unemployment benefits extension act. I have repeatedly said that the Senate should have a full and open debate on this important issue and that debate should include the opportunity for those of us in the minority--and perhaps those in the majority--to offer amendments and changes that would represent the view of the people they represent in Congress. Those amendments could strengthen the bill, make it better, and perhaps make it something that the House could consider, since they have not taken up this legislation. Clearly, for those who are truly in need and for those who have played by the rules, the issue of extended unemployment benefits is a legitimate issue for debate--and for many here, for passage. I have not only worked with my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, but also with my Democratic colleagues, to secure two items which would give me a better sense of where we are going and would provide for better legislation--legislation that could perhaps work its way through the Congress and onto the President's desk. One of those two items was a legitimate pay-for. We clearly have a fiscal situation where, if we can't offset new spending with spending on programs that have not proven their worth, then we are going to continue to spend more than we take in, continue to add to our national debt, and continue to trot down the precipitous road to a fiscal crisis--$17 trillion-plus and counting, an ever-accumulating debt and continued unbalanced budgets. You can only run a business, a family or a government for so long when you do not make ends meet by having your revenues there to pay for your expenses. So having a legitimate pay-for was one of the criteria that I was trying to address along with my colleagues. Secondly was reforms to the program. It was the President himself who publicly acknowledged that the unemployment insurance program needed reforms. There were abuses in the program. It was not reaching all of the people it was intended to reach. It had some flaws and needed to be fixed. Once again, all of those attempts for reasonable reforms--not only by me, but by a number of my colleagues--were to provide what I believe is deemed, even on a bipartisan basis, as reasonable, but they have been rejected. They have been rejected not because we had a debate and voted and didn't achieve the requisite number of votes for passage, but they were rejected because the majority leader simply used procedures, once again, to deny the minority any opportunity--and, of course, that also includes the majority--to stand on this floor, to offer an amendment, to debate that amendment, to have a vote on it, to accept the result, and then move to forward. The two reforms I had mentioned--and that I thought made eminent sense--didn't really have much opposition to them. One was to simply end a process that resulted in a waste of taxpayers' money by violation of the law. The law requires that if you apply for unemployment benefits, you must prove you are able to work and that you have been seeking work--but most importantly, you are capable of working. The Social Security Disability Insurance Program requires, by law, that you are unable to work. Therefore, you cannot be eligible for those benefits unless you can prove--through a medical process or evidence--your inability to work. Yet the Government Accountability Office has found a significant number of folks in our country who are receiving checks from both programs. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are not able to work and therefore receive a disability payment, and at the same time--and in the same mailbox--receive a government check for unemployment insurance where you have to prove you are willing to work. I don't know what provision might be more logical than that in terms of reforming the program. It saves the taxpayer money, it eliminates fraud, and it simply puts the program on better footing. Given our fiscal plight today, it is the least we can do. Yet I have been denied--and my colleagues who have tried to offer the same amendment have been denied--the opportunity to do just that. Had we had the opportunity to come down here and offer that amendment, we could have had a debate. Those who saw it another way or didn't agree with what we were saying would have had every opportunity to vote no and turn down that amendment. They would then be accountable for their no or yes when they went back home--one way or another. There are people on both sides of the reform issue, and that is how the Senate is designed to work. The Senate is not designed to simply shut off a debate and deny the minority the opportunity to offer amendments. We are not asking for passage. We are simply saying: Give us a chance to make our case, and we will have to accept the outcome. That way every Member of this body will be responsible for how they voted and will go home and tell folks: This is why I did such and such. That is how the system is designed to work. Yet we find ourselves in a dysfunctional situation where there is no opportunity to have a debate and no opportunity to vote and to let people know where we stand. Maybe it is designed that way. Maybe we don't want people to know where we stand. I don't think anyone in this body can go home and tell the people they represent--their constituents: We are not going to tell you how we feel about that. I didn't want to put my vote on the record, and therefore, we are not going to have an opportunity to do that. It is a black mark on the Senate. It is a dysfunctional situation. It is no wonder that the American public holds us in such low regard. This body, which was created by our Founding Fathers, enshrined in the Constitution, and labeled as the greatest deliberative body in the world has simply turned into something totally different and totally opposite from that. We are a rubberstamp Senate, depending on what the majority leader decides he wants or doesn't want. I think that is a great disservice to the American people, and it is a great disservice to this institution. Having had the opportunity to serve here on two different occasions, the contrast between my two tenures in the Senate could not be more stark. When I first came, the rights of the minority were recognized by a variety of majority leaders who simply said: This is the Senate. You take tough votes, you have the debate, and you allow the minority their rights. As a consequence, the Senate has functioned as the world's greatest deliberative body for more than 200 years. Suddenly, we are now in a situation where that is not the case, and we have turned this simply into somewhat of a fiefdom where the majority leader has the full power to deny the minority their rights. I think we will come to rue the day when this practice was first initiated and rue the day when it has been accepted because it denies those of us who have had the great honor and privilege of representing our States the opportunity to do just that. Along with the amendment that I had for suitability, which simply gives States more flexibility in terms of providing suitable work for the unemployed--if it is provided to them, they have to accept it or they don't receive the unemployment checks. Those two amendments are two of the many suggested reforms that I think would make sense. But whether you agree with that or not, shouldn't we have the opportunity to present to the American people an honest, intellectual, rational debate on legislation--whether it fails or passes--so we can have a full understanding and they can have a full understanding of how to measure us in terms of whether we are true representatives of those who sent us here? Having said that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the legislation currently under consideration. But I want to begin by briefly discussing how we arrived at this point. In January, I was one of a few on our side of the aisle who voted to begin debate on the bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits. I said at the time--and I still believe today--that the Senate should have a full and open debate on this important issue, a debate that includes consideration of modifications and changes to the program. The President, after all, said the program needs reforms. This is an opportunity to implement those reforms. Members on both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats--have acknowledged the need for reforms. So my vote to consider this legislation early on, when it came up, was not about supporting or opposing an extension of the emergency unemployment insurance program, but it was about initiating a debate on this important topic and setting the stage for both sides to work together to find a credible way of paying for this extension, if it was granted, and having responsible reforms in terms of amending or changing the current law so we could avoid some of the duplication and some of the misuse of funds that go into this particular program. So those two things--a responsible pay-for and measures to reform the program--were critical. I felt that was the debate we needed and, in fact, we did have a bipartisan discussion back and forth with the caucus on our side of the aisle and the caucus on the other side. It is clear that we have gotten to the point where not all of us are happy with the result that came forward. I see my colleague from Nevada Senator Heller on the floor. No one could have been a better leader in terms of pulling the group together, working to find a sensible solution to this issue. I commend him for the efforts he has made. However, I am disappointed in not having the ability to offer amendments when a bill comes to the floor, and being shut down by the majority leader who simply says: I am going to use Senate procedures-- some of them arcane procedures--to deny the opposing party any opportunity to include their ideas, their thoughts, their amendments in the process. Throughout the discussion we have had with our colleagues across the aisle in trying to form a consensus and bring the bill forward, some of us were disappointed that those items that we offered, that we thought were reasonable, were not included in the final version. You do not always get everything you want. But nevertheless, at least around here you used to be able to go down to the floor and say: I want to give my colleagues a shot at hearing what my amendment tries to accomplish, and allow it a vote. And if you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. In the end, you look at the total package, as amended--or at least as attempted to be amended--and make a decision: Do I want to support this or not support this? That is the position we were in, and I had what I thought were two reasonable requests. One was prohibiting the simultaneous collection of Social Security disability insurance and receiving unemployment insurance. Look, the law is basic and it is common sense. If you are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, you have to be determined as someone capable of performing suitable work. I had an amendment to incorporate this proposal into the language of the final bill that is going to come before us. The amendment language is identical to the language previously proposed by Senate Democrats that would offset Social Security disability benefits by the amount of unemployment insurance received. So, as I said, by law, a person has to be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits. Yet, as we have found, some people claiming those benefits also are claiming Social Security disability benefits. The law provides that in order to claim disability payments, you have to prove that you are not capable of working, that there are basic medical reasons why you cannot work. But here we have, documented by agencies of the government, people who are getting checks for both programs. All we were trying to do--all I am trying to do is put forth a provision that says you cannot do both; you either are able to work or you are not able to work. If you are not able to work, you can qualify for disability payments. But if you are able to work, you may qualify for unemployment benefits if there is no work available, but you should not be able to qualify for both. While some adjustments have been made, there still are several billions of dollars of costs to the taxpayers because of this duplication. Secondly, I offered a provision that gave the States the flexibility to make decisions as to how people would qualify for these benefits. I hear frustration from employers all across Indiana that are basically being told by people who are looking for work: I would rather keep collecting unemployment than accept the job you are offering to me. In this time of slow economic growth, as we come out of the recession very slowly, some people, as has been documented to me by many employers across the State of Indiana, are basically saying people would rather collect the benefits. So we put in what was called a suitability provision that would prohibit individuals from receiving emergency unemployment compensation if they fail to accept any offer of suitable work. That is defined as work within their capabilities or suitable work referred to them by the State employment agency. Unfortunately I thought we had bipartisan support. Instead they said let's study this. It has been studied. It has been documented. We do not need to study. ``Study'' is a way for-- let's take this decision out of the process and it will put it down some dark, deep hole and maybe some study will come out later on. So the bottom line is that the two amendments I had hoped would be part of this final package have not been incorporated. What I am asking for, what I have been asking for now, is the opportunity to bring those two proposals forward, debate it on this floor, call for a vote. I am not going to filibuster it. I am not going to delay it. I am not going to throw a monkey wrench into the process. Let's have a time-limited, straightforward debate and give Members the opportunity to vote their yes or vote their no. Then, at the end, when this process has been worked through, as the Senate was designed to do but under the leadership of the current majority leader has not been able to do, once again--once again--the very function, the design of the Senate has been thwarted by the leadership or lack of leadership of the majority leader who simply said: I will use procedural measures to keep you from offering any amendment to this bill. I do appreciate the work that went on behind the scenes to try to come up with a consensus bill. I think that fell short of where I would like to go. I would at least like to have the opportunity as a Senator to offer on the floor an amendment to the bill and then accept the results, yea or nay. Since both of these things that I have mentioned have had bipartisan support, why are we not allowed to vote for it or against it. Why are we not allowed to have the opportunity to do what the Senate is supposed to do on behalf of the constituents whom we all represent? That was the basis for my decision to go forward with this. A lot of people misunderstood that, but it was simply a decision I made that we ought to return to some form of regular order. The reason we come to the Senate is to be able to be a participant in fashioning legislation. Our majority leader Senator Reid has disallowed that opportunity, meaning essentially robbing the soul of the Senate, the purpose of the Senate, the purpose of Senators, turning us into robots, rubberstamping whatever the majority leader wants us to pass or not pass, telling us that the 200-and-some years of tradition, of debate and vote in the Senate, the ability to offer an amendment has been denied us. Once again here we are back in the same situation because we have one individual who has made a decision that the minority does not count, that Senators--even some in the majority--do not count. They do not get to offer amendments either. We are going to do it his way and not the way it has been done for more than 200 years. With that in mind, having the ability to bring forward something that I think has bipartisan support, is responsible, will address the reforms the President called for has been once again denied. With that, I simply cannot support going forward with this, even though there are people out there who are legitimately looking for work, making every possible effort, should be able to qualify for an unemployment program. But the most basic of reforms that ought to be debated and voted on--we ought to have the courage to put our yes or our no to it so people back home know where we stand--that has been denied us yet once again. This is a dysfunctional body, led by a dysfunctional leader. It is not operating as the Constitution has put forth, as the tradition of the Senate has required. It is a shame. It is a shame on us that we are not even allowing debate and the opportunity to offer reforms, even when they have bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, when the Senate last met, I introduced, together with Senator Durbin, a resolution regarding our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That resolution, which received unanimous support in the Senate, called for a number of specific steps to punish and isolate Russia for its actions. Among these steps we called upon President Obama to impose sanctions on officials of the Russian Federation who are most responsible for the invasion of the Crimean region. I am pleased with recent announcements by the White House which demonstrate that the President has begun the process of sanctioning some of these individuals, although I had hoped the numbers sanctioned would be far greater. I also note that today the President is in the Netherlands discussing with our European allies and partners the need for further steps. I trust and hope he will be successful in reaching a firm consensus with our allies and friends to define a strong united response to Russian aggression. Further, I also welcome such provisions in the legislation that is now pending in the Senate, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, which I trust and hope the Senate will be acting on beginning this evening and perhaps extending into this week. I would note time is somewhat of the essence. If we are going to send a message to Russia, certainly we don't want to be bogged down in internal delay over nonrelated or only slightly related issues. In fact, that is why Senator Durbin and I moved our provisions forward before the Senate adjourned for the break, simply to make sure there was a united, bipartisan Senate unanimously approved agreement on 15 measures that would get the message to Vladimir Putin and the Russians that we take this very seriously. The legislation we will be dealing with also sanctions the Russians responsible for this recent aggression by prohibiting them from coming to the United States and freezing their assets in America. Our European allies have done likewise, and together we have begun to respond to Russia's outrageous behavior. However, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. We and our European allies must recognize the enormity of Putin's crime as he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders so vital to the stability of the postwar order. The international response must be more vigorous if we are to prove that Putin's behavior is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. A strong response now is the best way to reassure our allies and friends who are precariously placed on Russia's borders that this outrage must be stopped, reversed, and ended. Conversely, to do little more than prevent a handful of Russian officials traveling abroad will show Putin and his cronies that in the end we actually do not mean what we say. Again, the international response needs to be, has to be, much more vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together and united, one voice, claiming that the behavior of President Putin is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. When Senator Durbin and I introduced our prior resolution on this subject, we signaled our willingness to work with the administration to craft more punishing sanctions, including economic sanctions possibly targeting key sectors of the Russian economy, and I believe many of us here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle want to do more. I have suggested a range of provisions that would reduce Russia's oil and gas exports--which contribute a very significant amount to their economy and are therefore very dependent--I hope the President is discussing those very measures in Europe with our partners as we speak. We are all aware that sanctioning key Russian economic activities carries the possibility that our economic interests and those of our European allies could be affected at the same time. While this is reason for us to be thoughtful in terms of how we move forward, it is not a reason for inaction. It should not be the basis for our standing by and watching what is happening and simply saying: Well, this could potentially affect us economically back at home and therefore excuse the actions and probably enable further actions by our Russian adversary in this case. In the end, unpunished, unconstrained, rampant Russian territorial expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. Doing something now could prevent something much worse later. Standing up now could prevent something much more serious in terms of what we might have to do later. Sound policy decisions must reflect full assessments of all eventual consequences, and that includes a clear picture of what the world will look like if illegal, forceful annexation of a neighbor's territory is ignored or met only with a rap on the knuckles. I continue to believe we can and must do more to isolate Russia. This includes, for example, explicitly expelling Russia from the G8--not temporarily but explicitly expelling them and ending the NATO-Russia Council. In addition, I am proposing today a specific economic sanction that will harm Russian interests in a serious way and, hopefully, with minimal or no damage to our own. I am introducing an amendment to Ukraine aid bill and I trust it will find broad bipartisan support. The purpose of this amendment is to sanction Russia's Rosoboronexport, the sole state agency for export of Russian weapon systems and defense- related goods. This is a state corporation exclusively entitled to export the entire range of Russian armaments officially allowed for export. It was set up for that purpose. It was set up by President Putin. It is a state-owned enterprise and its business is sending Russian arms around the world--some to very bad actors. Many of our colleagues here in the Senate know of this arms export agency because of Russia's continuing supply of arms to Assad's regime in Syria. Many here have repeatedly called on the administration to stop all cooperation with Rosoboronexport for that reason. We now have a new, broader reason for ending all cooperation with this export agency of Russia. To take steps to meaningfully obstruct that agency's work and the income it provides the Russian state will become the most effective ways we have of demonstrating our condemnation of Russian action by force of arms. Let me briefly explain my amendment. It does three things: First, it prohibits the U.S. Government from doing any business with this Russian agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts. It is true the recent National Defense Authorization Act, which I supported, also includes similar language. But that act includes a waiver authority and another work-around provision the Defense Department has been using in order to buy Russian helicopters for Afghanistan. This practice has met with objection. It was objectionable when it began and it became more objectionable as the Russians continued to supply Assad. Now, based on what they have done in Crimea, it should be entirely unacceptable. Also, I just learned this morning that President Karzai announced his support for the Russian annexation of Crimea and approval of Russian actions, which makes our purchase of Russian weapons for the Karzai regime even more outrageous. After all we have done to support President Karzai and the Afghans with U.S. tax dollars and the lives and injuries to U.S. and coalition soldiers--after all we have done over a decade of time--President Karzai reaches out and publicly supports the Russian action, contrary to ours. Russia is the nation which pillaged Afghanistan for a decade. It is beyond belief that President Karzai can support, along with countries such as Syria and Venezuela--haven't heard from Cuba yet, but probably will--the Russian action when we are there trying to save his hide not only with our tax dollars but with our soldiers' lives. So my amendment takes away this waiver and would put a complete end to Karzai's business dealings with the Russians. Karzai will have to buy his Russian helicopters with his own money, not ours. Secondly, I propose this amendment will prohibit contracts with any domestic or foreign company that cooperates with Rosoboronexport in the design, manufacture, or military development of military equipment. Other types of business dealings with the corporation for nonmilitary activities would not be affected. We are going after the military exports, many of which go to some of our sworn enemies. Third, I propose to authorize the President to deduct from our foreign assistance programs any amount that a foreign state recipient spends on Russian weapons through Rosoboronexport. These deductions would be made from the Economic Support Fund and security assistance accounts but would not affect other aid programs. The President would be authorized to reprogram such funds for use elsewhere subject to congressional notification. If a USAID recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy Russian weapons, they need to know we would deduct that amount from our assistance programs. They can buy Russian weapons on their own dime, not on our dime. Taken together, I believe these proposals would be a very useful addition to the Ukraine aid act and give it the additional teeth it needs. This amendment would harm the Russian arms industry, the Russian economy, Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world. That ought to be our goal. Whether it is my amendment, any other amendment, or whether it is the act we will be debating, it needs to harm the Russian arms industry, the Russian energy portion of the economy, Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world. This amendment will serve as a concrete and immediate response to the illegal invasion perpetrated by the Russian Federation. I urge the majority leader to permit a full debate, an up-or-down vote on my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have been discussing the Ukraine crisis with my constituents and a number of Indiana media outlets for the last few days. Virtually every interview or conversation on the subject includes this question: What difference does this make to us here in Indiana? What American interests are at stake? These are legitimate questions, and they deserve an answer because before we commit America to address potential conflicts, we need to describe and define just what our interest is and why we should be engaged. In this conflict we are not talking about the use of military force, but we are thinking about and talking about and should be examining other measures that can influence the outcome of a crisis situation that could have significant consequences for the American people. If we can't answer that question and we can't address that with a compelling answer, then we should not get engaged. But if we can determine a compelling answer and reason why we should engage in some form, then we need to make sure the American people know why it is we are renewing this and why this is important. Ukraine is 5,000 miles away. The trade between our two countries is minuscule and shrinking. Only 30 percent of the Ukrainian population shares our Christian faith or identifies with any faith. Ukraine is the source of no energy or crucial materials. Indeed, the country is a source of instability and corruption. So why should Americans and Hoosiers care about what is happening to a country 5,000 miles away? Well, let me suggest some reasons and then perhaps some suggestions as to what would be the best way for us to help influence this crisis situation in a way that is positive for our country and, frankly, for Western democracy and for the world. The first and most obvious reason we should take this seriously is the central lesson of history: Conflicts--even catastrophes--sometimes grow from small beginnings. Most know that the assassination of an imperial relative in a Balkan town in 1914 led to the death by violence of 37 million people--World War I. We also know that the cataclysm of World War II began with the stealth invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. Despite warnings as to what this might lead to, we saw a tragic loss of tens of millions of people in World War II. This is eerily reminiscent of Russia's moves on Crimea last week. A history lesson closer in time is taught by the Balkan wars of the 1990s. When Serb gunboats shelled Dubrovnik, a Croatian city, in 1992, the world--and most especially Croatia's European neighbors--did exactly nothing. Our own Secretary of State said repeatedly that there were no American interests at stake. Before that view was changed and NATO eventually intervened 3 years later, more than 100,000 people had been slaughtered. If the international community had had the collective wisdom and leadership--and, frankly, courage and guts--to simply tell Belgrade that civilian European population centers are no longer shelled in modern Europe, all of that suffering could have been prevented and our own Armed Forces could have stayed in their barracks and in their homes. We should draw from such lessons so that we need not confront later the question of whether we should intervene militarily in a Ukrainian civil war or a war between Ukraine and Russia. Instead, we must confront now the choice we have of doing nothing and letting Putin have his way or leading an American and an international response to impose penalties on Putin's Russia so that he comes to his senses. A second and related American interest is in the stability of the European continent itself. Ukraine is not an obscure sideshow. It is comprised of remnants of two European empires and deeply embedded in the integrated structure, identity, economy, and culture of Europe as a whole. Disaster there threatens a very great deal in Europe, a continent we have spent 100 years, trillions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives to stabilize. European security and stability have been at the very heart of our foreign and defense policy for an entire century. If American foreign policy and American strategic interests in the world have any permanent core, it is that interest in Europe's well-being. Ukraine's conflict with the remnants of Soviet-style aggression portends serious threats to the rest of Russia's border lands, nearly all of which were long dominated by Red Army presence and force. The Baltic states must be alarmed right now. If we do nothing, they could panic. Poland has already summoned NATO councils to consider consequences for its own security and therefore for the security of the alliance. Georgia painfully reflects that the paltry international response to its own war with Russia five years ago surely emboldened Putin in this latest adventure. In other words, we could be looking at a Sudetenland moment. We hope that is not the case. It is no secret that Putin has imperial ambitions motivated by his pathological insecurities and a quest to restore lost glories. These are dangerous delusions that, if not confronted firmly, could come to threaten us all. Beyond history and beyond the threats to continental security instability, I am even more concerned about America's place in the world and how inaction will further harm it. Abroad, we are increasingly seen as a spent force, exhausted by interminable wars, politically divided and inert, financially strained, and floundering without firm, articulate, determined leadership. This is a bleak, incomplete picture of my country that more than anything else makes me determined to be part of an effort to correct this perception of America. In many ways, we can potentially look at the Ukrainian crisis as an opportunity. We have a chance now to summon our collective will and impose costs for Putin's irresponsible behavior. We have many robust capabilities to reward those who join us in responsible, mutually productive cooperation in managing world affairs and in punishing those who do not. This is the moment to demonstrate our return to the leadership role that the realities of this harsh world have long imposed upon us. This situation, this crisis which we now face in Ukraine, can be a moment to demonstrate our return to a leadership role desperately needed by this tortured world where the realities of this harsh world have long imposed upon us. It is in our national interest, in my opinion, to lead the world toward solutions that we know are best for us all. No other country can manage it. We have seen that. Without that management, we risk things that could harm us in many ways and continue to undermine our role in this world in providing for peace and stability. For these reasons, tomorrow I will introduce a sense-of-the-Senate resolution articulating some of the steps I think we and the President should consider together. None of these steps involve military force or the preparation for using such force. Now is not the time to add to the violence but, rather, to remove the use of force by all parties as an option. I hope the resolution will contribute to the search for both a bipartisan, unified government approach to problem-solving and an international consensus on firm actions that will change Russia's behavior. I am saying that we should stand united as Americans with a single message and a single voice led by our leader which shows we are resolute in standing together--hopefully with our European allies and others who want to join us--in condemning the actions taken by Putin and Russia and in offering and proposing meaningful sanctions and measures that will bring the reality of Russia's actions straight to Putin's desk and hopefully cause him to rethink his strategy. The resolution will commit the Senate to work urgently with the President to identify a package of economic sanctions and other measures to compel Putin to remove armed forces from Ukrainian territory and return that territory to full Ukrainian sovereign control. Further, I will suggest that we construct a complete comprehensive plan to isolate Putin's Russia from the community of nations. We seek a consensus on such a plan with our friends and allies--everyone who wants to see a sovereign Ukraine, secure within its own border, able to seek its own destiny on its own terms. That is the right of every sovereign nation. My resolution will also call upon the President to consider a number of measures to isolate and sanction Russia. We could reschedule a meeting of the G-8 nations to take place as soon as possible, at which meeting the participating nations should seriously consider a U.S. proposal to formally expel Russia. The United States should propose to NATO that the alliance immediately suspend operation of the Russian-NATO council. The Russian military and diplomatic representation at NATO should be expelled. A close relationship with Russian's defense officials during a time when that country has invaded and occupied a neighbor contravenes the founding purpose of NATO. How could we possibly meet on a Russian-NATO council basis when Russia has invaded and occupied a neighbor? The President should ask the leadership of FIFA to reconsider its decision to place World Cup 2018 matches in Russia and instead award these games to a more worthy alternative country. Russia has just celebrated the Sochi Olympics. I think we got the real measure of President Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, as to what his real intentions are--it is not to bring more good will and more confidence in that country. The United States could work with other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE--to deploy monitors in Ukraine to help confirm that the security of the Russian-speaking population is not threatened. This pretext for Russian aggression must be removed to international satisfaction. Senate leadership could dispatch a congressional delegation led by OSCE Commissioners to visit Ukraine and bolster OSCE's involvement in addressing this crisis. Another option would be the United States working with OSCE and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to support her proposal to create an OSCE contact group to pursue dispute resolution and mediate direct negotiations between the Ukrainian and Russian Governments. The United States should not maintain the current status of diplomatic relations with Russia at current levels. We could downgrade our diplomatic representation while retaining its efficacy by announcing that we will not send our new Ambassador to Moscow. Instead, we could dispatch an experienced professional diplomat to Ukraine to serve as charge d'affaires to handle the crisis. We could also reduce the diplomatic presence to focus exclusively on crisis management, not business as usual. We could close consulates general and require Russia to make reciprocal steps to close their consulates in the United States. I believe we in Congress should expand the Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act to sanction the Ministry of Defense officials in the chain of command responsible for this invasion, the Duma leadership responsible for rubberstamping it, and Crimean officials complicit in its execution. The United States should also consider sanctions that might serve to convince more segments of the Russian population that their government is taking irresponsible steps contrary to the people's interests. To this end, we should suspend and could suspend Russia's eligibility for H-2B temporary or seasonal work visas. This is just a menu of suggestions of actions we can take, actions that I think would impose upon Russia a cost for their brazen attempt to intercede in the affairs of a sovereign nation to, under the most flimsiest of pretenses, invade a country under the pretext that its citizens there, or those who favor support for Russia, are under some type of lethal threat. That is not the case. It has not been demonstrated, and it has not been proven. Now is the time to act--to act quickly and act together. Our leverage is our leadership. We need to take up that powerful tool and show Putin that he has misjudged us. Now is the time for the United States to reassert its leadership in the world by taking direct action--not through military action but through a menu of measures designed to bring Russia to its senses and designed to protect the sovereign interests of those nations that are seeking to align with the West in a Democratic way. We need that leadership from the President. We need that support from this Congress in a bipartisan measure. And we need to speak with a united voice, hopefully with our European partners and others throughout the Western world and the free world, to send a message that Russia cannot ignore and to impose a measure of costs that will impact that country's economy and impact the decision that has to be made by their President. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire what the order is in morning business relative to time?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to come to the floor to speak about a different subject but one which is imminent and necessary for us to consider; that is, the current Iranian sanctions issue. Back in 2007, when Iran had ``only'' about 700 centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium, we--and by ``we,'' I mean nearly the entire international community--determined that the behavior by the Iranian regime was simply too dangerous to tolerate. The U.N. Security Council began the process of passing a series of resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium entirely. The United States, led by many here in the Senate, began the very careful and painstaking process of amassing an international coalition to back increasingly tough sanctions, all aimed explicitly at forcing the Iranian regime to end enrichment activities. The reason for this was because we believed a nuclear weapons-capable or -armed Iran posed an imminent threat not just to the Middle East but to the world community. That was the consensus agreed to by the world community and supported by resolution after resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations and by proclamations by not only our country but by countries around the world. The entire effort had, for some years, been devoted entirely to ending uranium enrichment activities. The consensus was that nuclear weapon possession or capability posed unacceptable consequences. Now that goal is nowhere in sight. Neither the interim agreement currently being employed, nor the administration, nor any of the negotiating partners even refer to these resolutions or this multiyear strategy of achieving the objective we set out to accomplish. The objective was that Iran would cease enrichment of uranium, which could be used to achieve nuclear weapons capability. This goal has suddenly been totally abandoned. The current interim agreement explicitly concedes to the Iranians their right to continue enrichment activities with only meager limitations, all of which can be reversed by the mullahs in Iran in an instant. The mullahs in Iran boast publicly of this great negotiating victory for them, which goes against everything we have been trying to do for the past 6 or 7 years. It seems unassailable that Iran came to the negotiating table at long last directly as a consequence of the hardship that was achieved by these international economic sanctions that were imposed on this regime. They resisted coming to the negotiating table until these sanctions really started to hit home. But what is equally clear is that the regime wants sanctions relief and has sought this interim deal to accomplish it--and unfortunately, we have given it to them. And what do we get in return? What we get in return is having negotiated away our very core purpose for doing this in the first place. Instead of using our leverage to continue the progress we had made to bring Iran to cease uranium enrichment, we blunted our very best leverage and our very best tool. Instead of pressing our long-term advantage, we have begun to relieve the pressure on Iran to cease their efforts to gain nuclear weapon capability. And why have we abandoned our goal to stop uranium enrichment? Because the Iranian negotiating team has told us they would never tolerate an end to their long, expensive path to an enrichment industry. So here is my central conviction on this matter: If those on the other side of the table tell us in advance that our long-held conviction and purpose is asking too much, instead of meekly complying with their request, then we must increase pressure until they change their minds, not abandon our own goal because it is perceived as too tough. So what have we bought with this interim agreement? According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, of which I used to be a part, the main practical consequence of this claimed ``freezing'' is that the time Iran now needs to produce a critical mass of highly enriched uranium-- 20 kilograms--with current centrifuges has gone from an estimated 59 days to 63 days. What did we gain from the agreement? Four days--four days longer that it will take Iran, once they flip the switch, to get highly enriched uranium, which allows them nuclear capability. It seems clear that among Iran's principal objectives now is to break apart the strong international consensus we have worked so hard over so many years to forge. Prospects for Iran to do so look pretty darned good. Clearly Iran has not lived up to what they agreed to do or what we asked them to do. But there seems to be no prospect in place for our returning to sanctions unless the Senate, on a bipartisan basis--and there is bipartisan support for this--is able to impose the next round of sanctions should this interim agreement not achieve its objectives. Yet we are currently being blocked from bringing this legislation to the floor. I repeat: This is bipartisan legislation led by Senator Menendez of New Jersey and those who have been actively engaged and involved. But now we are being asked to stand down. We are not even given a chance to exercise our vote on this, which we are attempting to add to the pending legislation here. Again, delay, delay, delay is putting us in a position of essentially conceding to the Iranians what they want and giving them the opportunity to continue to pursue their quest for nuclear weapons capability. Obviously, for them, it is just fine if they can turn the protracted uncertainty and gradual sanctions relief into a series of lesser agreements. But for us, more interim agreements will mean our allies will become accustomed to these gradual changes and the increasing commerce in Iranian oil. They will become less inclined to again reverse course almost regardless of Iranian actions. Following that prolonged process, we confront a stronger Iran but a weaker international coalition opposed to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Iranian ambitions and capabilities will grow, our efforts to halt the Iranian quest for nuclear capability will diminish, and we will then be left with a choice of containing or taking military action against a nuclear-capable, if not nuclear-armed, Iran. The President has said repeatedly that ``containment'' is not an option. It is not for me either. Since he also said military force is an option, it seems clear to me this current course is more likely to bring us to that stark point than to a negotiated settlement. We must be determined to do what we can in the Senate to prevent us from reaching that point. Not only must we refocus our government and other friendly governments on the need to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure in any final agreement--no matter how difficult that might be--we must also oppose Iran's likely intentions to prolong the negotiation process intended to continue to weaken our coalition. The Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act that I have cosponsored will give us great leverage in doing that. It will make it clear that the Senate will not support playing Iran's game any longer than we already have. I deeply regret that we are not being given the opportunity to debate this issue before the American people and among ourselves, that we are not allowed to have a vote in the Senate as to whether our current policy that this administration is pursuing is the right policy to achieve the goal which we all agreed to. The last four Presidents--two Democrats and two Republicans--have declaratively said: A nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable. President Obama has stated that over and over. Yet here we are engaged in a process that advances that prospect. We are put at a disadvantage, and we are giving away the one tool that has brought Iran to the negotiating table. They have trumpeted publicly about how they have outsmarted us and outnegotiated us and achieved what they wanted to achieve and diminished our opportunity to achieve what the world community wants to achieve. We will rue the day that we almost had Iran to the point where we could have achieved our goal but stepped back and conceded to their promise and commitment to continue to enrich, to continue to add centrifuges, and to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. If Iran is armed with nuclear weapons, it will pose unimaginable consequences to us. There has been total agreement on that among the world's Nations. Yet here we stand at the moment of decision--right when we, in a sense, had them where we wanted to get them, and we conceded that. I deeply regret that we have not been able to move forward with these additional sanctions to be employed if--in this first interim agreement--Iran does not live up to the objectives and goals which we have demanded. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think nearly every Member of this body shares the goal of increasing access to affordable health insurance and helping American families receive the best coverage to meet their specific needs. So the question before us today--and the question before us this entire Congress--is how are these goals being achieved. This has been an issue we have been debating since 2010, when ObamaCare was signed into law. Based on the extraordinary feedback from Hoosiers, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, the overwhelming number of messages that have been sent to my office, and that I have heard while traveling across the State of Indiana, suggest that the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be a dismal failure. It is hurting more families than it is helping. To top it all off, the administration, late last Friday afternoon once again cut one of the most popular programs available to seniors-- Medicare Advantage. We have 230,000 Hoosiers enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans who could be told major cuts will be made to their plans in order to pay for ObamaCare. What an irony. We pass a program to provide health care coverage for senior citizens. They sign up for the program. They make the choice on their own to pay higher costs for Medicare Advantage so they get better coverage, and the administration simply says: We need to rebalance things so we are going to do everything we possibly can to make it more difficult and more expensive. This was their choice, but the administration is saying: We are going to make it our choice that this program is going to be reduced and much harder to engage in. Consider what is happening. This administration is cutting billions of dollars from Medicare Advantage--an extremely popular program not just in my State but across this country--to pay for ObamaCare, which is extremely unpopular. So the administration takes a plan that works, a plan that people support, because it is their choice and they are willing to pay for it, and the administration says: No, we are going to take that away from you so we can cover the cost for a plan that is not popular. This is the irony of ironies, particularly in terms of meeting the goal that I think all of us want to meet. So we have yet another broken promise. The President so famously said over and over again: If you like your plan, you can keep it. If you make a choice as to how you want to be covered, what benefits you want to have, what premium you want to pay, you can keep that--but now he is saying, well, no, effectively, you can't keep it because we are going to take that away from you. It is no wonder I receive tens of thousands of pieces of mail and phone calls from Hoosiers all across my State saying: I got duped here. I got lured into something that supposedly was going to make medical care less costly; that I would be able to keep my doctor, I would be able to stay with my hospital, I would be able to keep the benefits in the plan I chose, and now I am being told, no, none of that is going to work. As was just stated by Senator Cornyn of Texas, there is a bipartisan effort underway to send a message to the President. It urges the President to preserve Medicare Advantage and the incentives to join it. I know the President doesn't want to listen to Republicans and have them tell him what is happening in their States, what their suggestions are as to what to do to fix this disaster of a health care plan, but maybe he should listen to Members of his own party. There is a significant number of Democrats who have said: We don't want these cuts to be imposed on Medicare Advantage. We don't want to go home and tell our constituents they can no longer have their Medicare Advantage plan. So if the President doesn't want to listen to us, I fully understand that. He has made that very clear. But perhaps he should listen to Members of his own party and listen to what they are saying. Let's give people the ability to make choices and keep the plan they have chosen and not have it taken away by a bureaucracy that simply makes decisions for them. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I did not come to speak on this bill, although I certainly appreciate the remarks of my colleague from North Carolina I also see the chairman is here. I say to the chairman of the committee, I am only prepared to speak on a separate subject probably for 5 to 7 minutes. As I said, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, particularly when we are dealing with veterans, their benefits, and health care in particular. We need to be very careful in terms of what we are doing so we do it the right way because we owe them all our Nation's gratitude for the sacrifices they have made. As veteran myself, I have some appreciation of that. My daughter married into a military family. Nevertheless, we need to be very careful how we go forward in making sure the care they get through the VA system is the very best care possible. My colleague has outlined a number of issues that need to be debated, and I dearly hope the majority leader will allow us the opportunity to not only debate but vote on the alternative which, in my opinion, addresses the issue in the very best way. Medical Device Taxes Today I come to speak about the President's visit to Minnesota. I wish it were Indiana. He is going there for the purpose, as stated, of discussing a new initiative--I think it is a transportation initiative--that he hopes will create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Clearly, that has been an ongoing challenge for this administration. How ironic. How ironic to go to Minnesota, a State like my home State of Indiana, which has been one of the most negatively impacted by the excise taxes imposed upon one of its most dynamic job creators--the medical device industry. How ironic it is to go to Minnesota and talk about creating jobs and economic growth while at the same time promoting a provision that was incorporated in the Affordable Care Act that imposes an egregious excise tax on not the profits but on the sales receipts of medical device companies. It is simply an ObamaCare pay-for. As I said, Indiana and Minnesota are homes to many of the country's largest medical device manufacturers. In fact, my State of Indiana exported more than $9.7 billion in life science products in 2012, which includes medical devices. It is second in the country only to California in terms of exports of life science products. So it is very important to our State. We have over 300 FDA-registered medical device manufacturers--some of them large, some of them small. They employ 20,000 Hoosiers directly, with an indirect support of nearly 30,000 more. So it is not a small thing for our State. It is one of the--and pardon the pun--cutting-edge industries, producing devices that improve the health of Americans and extend the life of Americans through some remarkable innovations. These companies have revolutionized the medical field with life-enhancing, as well as lifesaving, technology. So what is the effect of this excise tax that has been imposed on these companies and this thriving industry? Well, let me respond in a way that reflects what some Hoosiers have told me, as I travel across the State talking to these device employees and CEOs and manufacturers, learning what the impact of this tax is on their industry, which is so important to our country's economic growth. One device manufacturer located in Warsaw, IN, develops and sells orthopedic implants for children but recently had to shelve two important projects simply because they had to get the money to pay the tax, so they could not put it into the research and development and innovation of their next products. I quote an employee of this company, who told my office: ``The medical device excise tax inhibits us from developing more products that can reduce a wheelchair-bound child's discomfort or that can allow a kid to walk for the first time.'' So there are real consequences here. Companies, many of which are innovative, struggling to design that new product that can be life enhancing and life saving, have simply had to defer their product to pay the tax. They may not have made a penny in net profits. Many of these are startup companies, hoping to develop and get FDA approval for, the next new life-enhancing innovation. Yet they are not taxed on their net profits--and many are losing money initially in order to go through the tortuous and time-consuming process of getting FDA approval, which denies them getting their products out to the market for a long period of time; so most of them early on are not making any profit. But on the devices they are selling, every dollar that comes in is taxed, even though they have no net profits and, therefore, they have to take money out of research and development, out of capital equipment, out of employee compensation, in order to send the check to the government. Cook Medical, which is located in Bloomington, IN, another Hoosier device manufacturer, was forced to table plans for a major expansion because of the device tax. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last year, Cook's medical chairman, Steve Ferguson, said this: Cook has made the difficult decision that without repeal [of the medical device tax], we will move important new product lines outside of the U.S. Our previous plans to open up five new manufacturing facilities in American towns are now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to pay the excise tax. There are very real consequences here in terms of job creation and economic growth that are being inhibited. We are getting just the opposite. We are getting job-killing and deflated economic results as a result of this tax. And it is an egregious tax. The Advanced Medical Technology Association recently conducted a survey of its members--they shared that with me earlier today--and found that the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 workers last year. Mr. President, that is 33,000 people who could have joined the workforce at wages which in my State are 56 percent higher than the average State wage. So these are good-paying jobs. They require good skills, but they are good-paying jobs. And it is an emerging series of products that can be exported around the world. The survey also found that one-third of the respondents had to reduce their research and development as a result of the medical device tax. In terms of investment dollars, three-quarters of the respondents said they had taken one or more of the following actions in response to the tax: They have either deferred or canceled capital investments; deferred or cancelled plans to open new facilities; reduced investment in startup companies; found it more difficult to raise capital, particularly among startup companies; and reduced or deferred increases in employee compensation. There are negative results that come from taxing anything. But when you tax sales, when you tax on an excise basis, it has a compounding effect for startup companies, and even for established companies, in terms of what they are able to do in terms of hiring, in terms of plant expansion, in terms of research and development, in terms of innovation. This is happening across the country. Minnesota and Indiana just happen to be two States that have been particularly hard hit. We ought to be encouraging these companies to continue their research and development. We should not be punishing them with an egregious tax which is simply a byproduct and the administration says: We have to find a pay-for for ObamaCare. Here is a prospering industry, so let's take some money from them--not on their profits--but let's just take money from them from their sales--an excise tax--so that we can apply it to ObamaCare. Essentially, what they are doing is taking money from a program that works and puts people back to work and generates taxes the right way and transferring that money to a program that is in distress, has turned out to be a job killer, according to studies and a number of agencies that have looked at this, and is very much in a state of confusion and disarray right now among the American people. So you take some money from something that works and you give it to something that does not work. What kind of rationale is that? And how can the President go to Minnesota and say: I am here to stimulate growth and create jobs, while his very own policy has done just the opposite? The senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and I chair the Senate Medical Technology Caucus. We have been able to pull together a bipartisan effort to increase awareness of these unique issues but also to achieve a vote, which is hard to do around here. During the budget we had the so-called vote-arama. Republicans and Democrats got to offer any amendment we wanted. It is not binding law, but it sets the stage and illustrates the Senate's stance on particular topics. On this one 79 out of 100 U.S. Senators--Republicans and Democrats; that is 45 Republicans and 34 Democrats--voted for repeal of the medical device tax. So this is not a Republican standing here challenging the President of another party or Members across the aisle saying: We are asking you to support this Republican issue. This is a bipartisan issue. Almost as many Democrats as Republicans support this. But yet the majority leader has refused to allow this to come to an actual vote, which would put it into passage--because the House has already supported and passed this--and be sent to the President for his signature. So I guess what I am asking here today is that the majority leader at least allow us the opportunity to go forward with a vote, where it would then, I suspect it would pass, be sent to the President. If he really wants to create jobs and stimulate the economy, we have living proof of something that will do it. I do not know how the President today can go to a State and say: I am here to stimulate the economy and provide for new jobs and at the same time have in place a majority leader who will not allow us a vote on it. We all want to enact measures here that will get our country growing again and will get people back to work. In an area where we are providing life-enhancing and lifesaving medical technology, it is particularly important. So my plea, as I finish here, is I urge the majority leader and I urge the President--if they are serious about encouraging economic growth, spurring job creation, and improving health care--to support the repeal of this unfair and destructive tax of medical devices. I yield the floor.