Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. We yield back.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I returned to the Senate in 2011 to tackle what I believed to be the greatest challenge facing our country, and I have devoted much of my first 3 years in this returned term on working to achieve a debt reduction agreement that would put our Nation on a path to fiscal health and fiscal responsibility. I have been involved in discussions for endless hours and days and months with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats--with the administration and with outside groups over trying to put together a long-term deficit and debt reduction plan that will put us on the path to fiscal health, to finding a way forward to deal with our ever mounting debt. I am committed to working with my colleagues and the administration on this issue because I believe, ultimately, the most important thing we can do for the future of our country, for future generations--the most important legacy we can leave during our term of service here--is to solve our Nation's fiscal crisis. Recently, we have heard relatively little about this. Despite efforts which have been ongoing for the last 4 to 6 years, we have not come to a resolution; we have not come to an agreement which puts us at the beginning of a path to resolve this problem. Yet each year it mounts. Our debt dramatically increases. We continue on deficit spending. Even though we have made a few efforts to reduce deficit spending to half of what it has been--at least for this coming year, based on the sequester and the implication of that--it is also clear that this is temporary. It is also clear that whether we reduce it in half or not, the other half still amounts to more than half a trillion dollars of excess spending, driving our debt higher and higher. I am privileged to serve as the senior Republican Senator on the Joint Economic Committee. We spend a fair amount of time looking at the projections for the future and how they ought to shape our actions here in the Congress, as well as how we should work with the administration in terms of dealing with this issue. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan group who deals with numbers, not with politics--at least they are not supposed to. They bring about their annual ``Budget and Economic Outlook,'' which was released today. Looking at it is shocking. Never has my conviction been stronger than today when I read this outlook which has just been released. It addresses issues important for all of us. I am going to talk about just the top 10. But if this is not a siren call to us to refocus our efforts on this issue, we are going to regret to the end of our lives not having taken action to begin the process of getting this country's fiscal health and responsibility back in order. Again, this is the Congressional Budget Office--a nonpartisan group established by this body to deal with numbers and give us facts and projections from economists who give us the opportunity then to look at how we shape policies. I was stunned by the CBO report, and I would like to share the shocking findings. I hope every Member of Congress will look at this. I am going to distribute it on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee so we have access to this. But it ought to send a shock wave through all of us, and it ought to provide us with the courage and the will to step up and do what I think we all know we need to do. Finding No. 1. The national debt has exploded over the last several years. Gross Federal debt in 2014 is projected to reach $17.7 trillion, which is a figure larger than our entire economy and an increase of over $7 trillion in just the last 5 years under this President. Point No. 2. CBO projects cumulative deficits from 2014-2023 to be $1 trillion larger than last year's projection for the same time period. Last year was startling enough. Now we learn--after 1 year of sequestration, holding down spending, and speeches on this floor saying we are getting control of this, CBO comes along and says the cumulative deficits from 2014 to 2023 will be $1 trillion larger than they thought just last year. So while we are congratulating ourselves for holding down spending, we are told we are adding $1 trillion more than was projected and anticipated last year. Now we are dealing with the so-called Affordable Care Act--yet to be proven to be affordable. CBO says that ObamaCare will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.3 million people through 2021. At a time when this was sold as a plan to put Americans back to work, as something that would reduce our deficit because we would get control of out-of- control health care spending, we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that the number of full-time workers will decrease by 2.3 million. This is a significant increase from the last estimate of 800,000 during the same time period. So we have gone from an 800,000 projection not that long ago to 2.3 million. Point No. 4. Mandatory spending--particularly our health and retirement security programs--is crowding out all other priorities. The Congressional Budget Office once again has said that as we look at our total budget, the mandatory spending continues to crowd out all other spending priorities. This figure stood out and stunned me because it is the first time I have seen such an extraordinary jump in the mandatory spending percentage of our total spending. On mandatory spending, CBO says interest on the debt is projected to consume 94 percent of all Federal revenues 10 years from now, squeezing out funding for all other priorities. Squeezing out? Eliminating. We are entering the season when interest groups from our State come with many creative and innovative ideas as to how they could better spend or spend more money on their particular programs. They come in and say, ``We are here to encourage you to increase spending for medical research at the National Institutes of Health'' or, ``We are here to have you understand how important scholarship grants, Pell grants, and others are for enrollment of students in our States'' or, ``We are here to talk about the need to improve our infrastructure, to pave our roads and fill potholes and build and repair and establish new infrastructure for the movement of water, sewage treatment.'' On and on it goes. We can go right down the list of literally hundreds of requests as to how tax dollars ought to be spent to better improve our States, to better improve our health, to better improve our education, to better improve a whole range of things, including support for national security. I have to look them in the eye and say: Every year we have a smaller pot of money percentage-wise of our budget to apply to all these discretionary spending programs which Congress has to approve every year. I say: I am really not here to argue about whether money for the National Institutes of Health is more important than money for education grants or money for infrastructure development or any other endeavor in which the Federal Government is involved. Every year all of these are going to be faced with less money to fund these programs. Some of them ought to receive less and some of them ought to be closed and the waste and fraud ought to be eliminated. Nevertheless, there are essential functions that need to be funded, and they won't be able to be funded adequately and will continue to shrink as the mandatory spending runs out of control. But to think that of all the revenue--all the tax dollars that come into the Treasury 10 years from now, 94 percent will be spent on programs we have no control over and won't be available for any of the things I mentioned and dozens--if not more--of programs. It is simply unsustainable. Ninety-four percent. Six percent left to provide for our national security and national defense, our institutes of health, education, infrastructure development, manufacturing innovation, research and development--you name it. CBO also said Social Security is in jeopardy. They project that Social Security ``will continue to run cash flow deficits every year during the next decade.'' And the disability insurance trust fund will be insolvent by 2017. That is 3 years away. Let me repeat that. The Congressional Budget Office said that at the current rate the Social Security disability insurance trust fund will be insolvent in 3 years. They also said mandatory spending on health care programs is exploding. We have heard it said on this floor and we have heard it mentioned in the State of the Union Address and by the administration numerous times, that we are getting control of our exploding health care costs through the Affordable Care Act. In 2013 the Federal Government spent $861 billion on Medicare, Medicaid, and other major health care programs. This year the collective cost is expected to reach $933 billion and then nearly double by the year 2024 to $1.8 trillion. I don't call that getting control of our health care costs. Yet this mandatory spending part of our budget will continue to grow to the point where we simply have no money left for any other function of government. All this, of course, is based on interest rates and the assumption as to what they will be. CBO says interest on our debt is set to double. Annual interest payments on the national debt are estimated to more than double over the next 10 years from 1.3 percent of our gross domestic product in 2014 to 3.3 percent of GDP in 2024. And we know from the past that estimates of what will happen with interest rates will drive that rate higher, particularly as our fiscal crisis gets more desperate. Point No. 8. Again, the Congressional Budget Office says: We have a spending problem and not a taxing problem. Projected revenues will exceed the 40-year historical average of gross domestic product this year and outpace growth in our economy over the next 10 years. So they say the problem isn't too little revenue. That is going to continue to pour in here as we continue to raise taxes. But you can't raise taxes fast enough or adequate enough without, one, destroying our economy or limiting our economy, but, secondly, to keep pace with the spending, which will hit its projected average of 20.5 percent this year and over the next 10 years outpace economic growth to a greater degree. CBO notes that ``after 2024, the long-term trajectory of spending will drive up debt to nearly unprecedented levels. Let me repeat that. This is a quote from the Congressional Budget Office: ``After 2024, the long-term trajectory of spending will drive up debt to nearly unprecedented levels.'' CBO suggests that such an upward path would ultimately be unsustainable. Point No. 9. Labor force participation will continue to decline over the next several years. CBO projects that labor participation will drop to 62.5 percent by the end of 2017, fueled in part by the mandates in the Affordable Care Act and negative impact on job creators as a result. Point No. 10. The Congressional Budget Office suggests that even these dire projections may be overly optimistic. CBO projects real economic growth of 3.1 percent, which is notably higher than private sector and IMF estimates of 2.4 percent to 2.8 percent. CBO says that it ``would probably trim its projection of GDP growth'' in 2014, based on late-2013 data. So the numbers we are dealing with today may be overly optimistic. As dire as this report is, it may be that we are underestimating the damage that will come from our inability to control spending and put us on a path to fiscal health. This isn't another siren alerting Washington to the stark reality of our country desperately needing a real debt reduction agreement; this is, a five-alarm fire. Our fiscal house is engulfed in flames. The question is, When are we, who have been given the responsibility by the people we represent, going to have the courage to stand and do something about this, to put out this fire? We cannot overlook the fact that our Nation is facing record deficits as far as the eye can see. We are careening on an unsustainable, unstable fiscal path. We need all hands on deck to address this now-- not tomorrow, not after the next election. How many times have we heard, after this next election, we need to dig down and roll up our sleeves and take on this challenge. We need to do this now because the threat is now. A credible, long-term plan to reduce our debt and put our country back on a path of fiscal health and economic growth and opportunity is the only way we can preserve the America we enjoy today or have enjoyed in the past. It is the only way to preserve that for future generations. So I think we have a generational responsibility that is as important as any we have faced before. Many say our legacy rests on what we do here. Whether that is true, we certainly will be measured by what we do or what we don't do relative to this particular crisis. Again, this is not a Republican conservative standing and saying: This is how I see things. I am simply reciting how the entity we turn to, the Congressional Budget Office--a neutral body which just does the math and then draws conclusions from it--actually, we draw the conclusions; they put the numbers down. This is what the Congressional Budget Office has told us. These are stunning numbers, much more than any of us anticipated. I think there has been a little lull of us thinking: Well, we have things under control. We had sequester; that was kind of messy, but it did save some money. Now we have a budget. We are going forward and back to regular order. What is regular order? Regular order is continuing to spend more than a one-half trillion dollars more than we bring in, in revenue. Raising taxes, according to CBO, is not going to solve the problem; that just hinders economic growth. So those of us on both sides of this body who have worked to address these issues now, not later; those of us who have worked with the administration--and I was part of a small group working with the administration over a 7-month period of time with the President directly and with some of his top advisers to try to put something in place, as modest as it was or as it seemed to end up being--and we were not even able to complete that. That burden, that responsibility, that legacy rests on our shoulders. That duty rests on our shoulders, to acknowledge these facts, acknowledge these numbers, and to understand what impact it is going to have on the future of this country, our children and grandchildren, everybody's children and grandchildren, and perhaps even our generation. So I will be distributing this report from Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee. I am hoping our report sends out yet another alarm, and we will not simply rest on the fact that we have made a baby step here in terms of getting some control over our spending. But as we turn around--akin to a little grass fire over here that we put out across the street while the five-alarmer is burning away, blazing away, and we are saying we will deal with it later. We can't deal with it later. We must deal with it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come here to speak about a couple items. We are now in a second-day delay as the majority leader and his caucus decide whether Republicans will be allowed to offer alternatives and to offer amendments to the proposal before us, and that is extension of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I was one of six who voted for the motion to proceed for the very purpose of achieving the opportunity to offer ideas which I have had and to allow others on our side of the aisle to offer their ideas as to how we can improve this program, and how we ought to address it at this point in our continuing effort to struggle out of the great recession now into its fifth year. Unemployment is still high in my State--over 7 percent--as a number of States, which is unacceptable, and particularly into the fifth year after a recession. The growth has been so anemic and so tepid, we are sort of staggering our way into a better position. Nevertheless, while some people are finding jobs and getting back to work, there are many who aren't. That is a serious subject and something we ought to be debating and talking about. Unemployment insurance is one of the programs which has been proposed to help those in need. There are people who are genuinely in need of that help and have made every possible effort to get back to work and, for many reasons, have not been able to do so. But we also know, and it has been documented, that there are many people who have taken advantage of this program and basically said, I don't have to work hard to get back to work because I am getting enough support from the government. We have to acknowledge the fact that there are policy issues which have to be discussed as we go forward without automatically extending a program where we know reforms would make the program better and would put us in a better position to help people get back to work and to move our economy. We also know, working now to just pass a budget for the first time here in several years to work off of, the number we agreed on we wouldn't go over is now being violated. The very first legislative piece which has come before this body violates the budget agreement which was agreed to a short time ago. So a number of us would like the opportunity to propose ways to offset the spending if this program goes forward. The combination of those two things--reforms which will allow us to continue to support those who are genuinely unable to find work from those who are taking advantage of the program and abuse of the program, as well as suggestions as to how we can support efforts toward more full employment through training programs, through any number of initiatives--my colleagues would like to at least talk about, at least debate, and at least have a vote on. We are in the minority here. We are not sure we are going to win any of those votes. Although I think if we make persuasive enough arguments and it makes enough sense, perhaps we will. Given this 2-day delay in terms of a decision from majority leader Harry Reid as to whether to allow us these opportunities, it appears that through this tactic of supporting the motion to proceed we have literally put the ball in Harry Reid's office and his caucus court as to what they want to do. We went through the year 2013, and since July, Republicans have been offered a total of only four amendments to all the things done in the last 6 months of this year. That is not how the Senate is supposed to work. That is a dictatorial dictate by the majority leader, unprecedented in 200 years or more of operation of this Senate. So we are waiting for that decision, and, obviously, that decision will have a bearing on my position on this particular issue. I would also comment on the fact that lately we have been hearing a lot from the President about income inequality, and I anticipate we will be hearing a lot more as we move toward the 2014 elections in November. There will be a debate on this, and I hope there will be a debate which allows both sides to look at this in a serious way and try to find ways to address the issue. But if we do that, I think it is important we understand that the President's signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is called--is contributing to the problem of income inequality. So any debate on that issue, to be factually accurate and to be truthful, needs to incorporate a conversation about the impact of ObamaCare. As recently as 2012, we were told by the President that the health insurance premiums paid by small businesses and individuals ``will go down.'' Yet even as the administration recently has admitted that many Americans will pay more for health care because of ObamaCare, this week the latest report on health spending trends from CMS--the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid--disclosed that health care spending in the United States rose 3.7 percent in 2012. That is less than it rose in previous years, and that is a good sign. Many are saying, well, the reason for this is the Affordable Care Act. Had we not passed the Affordable Care Act, this wouldn't have happened. Apparently, though, they did not read the rest of the report because the report also states that the provisions in the Affordable Care Act had minimal impact on total national health care spending. So while the administration may claim that their bill, ObamaCare, is lowering overall health care spending, the report says it has only had a minimal impact. What is happening is that there are reforms being made through the private sector, through the providers, in terms of more efficient, more effective ways to deliver health care. That is not operating because of the health care act. In fact, the health care act, if we are truthful about it, is contributing to the problem of inequality. Many Americans are experiencing, despite what the President has said, higher premiums or paying outrageous deductibles when they purchase coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges. Let's bring this down to a personal level because I have been receiving hundreds, actually thousands of emails, phone calls, letters, comments that I hear back home from Hoosiers who basically say: This ain't working. It is sure not working for me. But I want to bring it down to the personal level so we can understand what individual families are going through at this particular time with this mandate imposed upon them relative to their health care coverage. Thomas from Indianapolis wrote to me and said he went on the ObamaCare exchange to take a look at health insurance plans that would be available to him and he was, as he said, ``shocked to find that it was at least $200 a month.'' That is $2,400 a year more than he had been quoted just a few months before from a broker. He added, ``I have thought about just going without insurance''--as we know many individuals are thinking about and have decided not to sign up for this program. Of course, the program is built financially on the fact that millions will sign up and that is not happening. I predict that is going to break the back of the program. He added: I have thought about going without insurance, but my family suggested that I not do that. The Affordable Care Act has created a terrible quandary for me. At this point I feel as if the Federal Government is like a mean Big Brother, making my life miserable. William from Granger, IN, emailed me to tell me his wife, who works as a part-time nurse, now is no longer offered health care because she is part time. So William then decided, OK, I will have to go into the exchange and find insurance for my wife and my family and discovered that their premiums will rise to $19,076 a year. He goes on to say, ``So much for `if you like your plan, if you like your doctor . . . your costs will go down by $2,500.' '' Let me repeat that. The President has said your costs are going to go down by an average of $2,500 a year. William's costs increased over $7,500 a year. That is a $10,500 swing. That is not what was promised. Brandy from Cambridge City, IN, told me: I have been offered insurance through work at a cost of $318 or $80 a week. I then checked HealthCare.Gov and have been given a quote of $450 a month. I work a minimum wage job and work as many hours as I can to get by as it is. After taxes and child support, neither option is an option that I can afford. He also cannot even afford to pay the penalty of the payment. These are just a few of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Hoosier comments I have heard from people who are experiencing sticker shock when they search for so-called affordable care under ObamaCare. I don't know if these people are Republicans or Democrats, conservatives, moderates, liberals, nonvoters or voters. These are just human beings who live in my State, regardless of their political affiliation, who are basically saying this thing is killing us. All these examples, multiplied by hundreds if not thousands, are contributing to the inequality the President is talking about. The inescapable truth is that the Democrats forced an unwanted, unpopular, and unread--the famous quote from then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--``We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it''-- and we are finding out about what is in it--an unwanted, unpopular, and unread 2000-plus page, one-size-fits-all health care bill, dictated by one party without any support from the minority. I am questioning whether this is the best way to deal with health care issues. Jamming this thing through on Christmas Eve day in 2009 has turned out to be a disastrous Christmas gift for the American people. Families across our country who are being forced to redirect money they would have used to pay rent, to help their children attend school, to put food on the table, to pay the electric bills, are finding many cannot even do that. As we discuss the issue of income inequality, and it appears the President is going to want to do that throughout this coming election year, let's not pretend that ObamaCare is helping the situation. It is not. We need to face up to the fact that the Affordable Care Act--I bet the writers of this bill, if they could do it over again, wish they had not used the word ``affordable.'' They could call it the health care act or health care act for American people or whatever. If they went back and rewrote it, I bet you they would drop the word ``affordable,'' based on the facts, not the perception, the fact of what this health care bill is. I suspect they would have wanted to pass this in a bipartisan way so that at this point in time they would not have to take full responsibility for this act. Too many hard-working American families are paying more, not less, for health care because of ObamaCare, and it is contributing to the inequality the President continues to talk about.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, we have been discussing, the last couple of days, the unemployment insurance issue. A number of us have had concerns relative to the effectiveness of the program relative to the cost that would undertake and how it would be paid for if it goes forward and is extended and the reforms we think would be needed to make this a much more effective program. We have not been offered the opportunity to do more than just discuss it on the floor. We have not been offered the opportunity to offer amendments, offer our ideas, have them debated and voted on. It is my understanding that the majority leader will be coming to the floor shortly to potentially--well, to tell us what the decision is relative to whether we will have that opportunity. Let me very quickly say I have been working with my colleagues Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and Senator Portman from Ohio. All three of us voted for the motion to proceed because we felt this is an issue that ought to be discussed and debated, and not simply dismissed, and because we would like to make corrections to the program that make it more viable. We would like to raise the issue of, is there a better way to deal with unemployment in this country? We have some amendments that would allow us to move and improve and move to what we think is a better way, as well as pay for a bill that, without being paid for, exceeds the budget agreement we just entered into. I offered four amendments. I was not insisting on offering all four. They were similar to what my colleagues had offered. The three of us want to very briefly speak to these and indicate to our colleagues what it is we would be doing. I offered the original bill way last fall, which would delay the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. As we all know, the President has delayed for 1 year the mandates on employers who provide health insurance for their employees, but did not so do so for individuals, for those who do not have coverage under their employer. We did not feel that was fair. Why one entity and not the other? It also violated the law that the President took the liberty to exercise. We are saying: Well, let's at least be fair, that those who are not covered by the 1-year delay on the mandate of employers would be subject to having to comply and we have--I will not go through all of the details, but we have seen the disaster that has happened in terms of that rollout. My amendment, No. 2611 to this bill, I am going to select out as the amendment I am going forward with. My colleagues also have excellent ideas. They will be offering those. Frankly, I agree with all of their amendments and what they are doing also, so I think we are pretty much on the same page. This amendment would delay the individual employer mandate under ObamaCare for 1 year. The estimated cost savings on this is $35 billion. I think that is a savings that obviously could be used for a number of offsets. I think at this particular point in time, I would yield the floor and let my colleague from New Hampshire explain her amendment and how the savings would be applied to some very necessary things. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will be brief. I know my colleagues probably have travel plans. But this is something we had earnestly hoped that by six of us supporting the motion to proceed, we would have the opportunity to offer an amendment, debate that amendment, and have our colleagues vote on that amendment. For the majority leader to simply say--and I quote him: I have looked at these amendments that Republicans have offered, and none of them are reasonable. Isn't that something this body is supposed to achieve by something called a vote? Do we have one person here who runs the place and says: I will decide whether your amendment is not reasonable. And if I decide your amendment is reasonable, along with all the other 23, then we won't have any vote or debate or the ability to offer any amendment whatsoever. I thought the way we settle things here as to whether this body thought something was reasonable or helpful or might correct some of the inequities which have been talked about here was decided by a vote of 100 Senators. But it has been decided by the decision of one Senator who has the power to do what he is doing. But this just perpetuates. The majority leader said he has been waiting since Monday for Republicans to offer a pay-for. I was down here Tuesday offering four options to pay for. I know the majority leader doesn't sit in the office and come to the floor when I come down to speak or turn on the television, but I think his staff would have told him: Well, Coats has four pay-fors. And I said: I am not asking for all four, Mr. Leader. You select the one you think best fits the thoughts and ideas and values of your caucus. So I put four out. The majority leader said we are delaying time. We have been waiting for nearly 2 days now for the majority leader to make up his mind in terms of what he wanted to do. The three of us who were listed as surprise votes for the motion to proceed weren't even asked to be part of any negotiations. We were trying to look for a solution to the problem, come together and have something to offer to our colleagues to vote on, but we weren't even asked to be part of that. So here we are. I am representing the people of Indiana. Their voice is shut down. I don't even have the ability to offer an amendment, which my constituents sent me here to do. They didn't send me here just to be told: Sit down and forget it; one person decides. So I am very disappointed. With that, in the interest of time I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2611.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, may I ask the majority leader to yield for just one question?

Mr. COATS. The majority leader just said this body gets nowhere by offering amendments. Does he mean throughout this year it is worthless, meaningless for Republicans to offer any amendments to any bill to try to make improvements to the bills or to try to make their voice heard or the voice of the people I represent, the people of Indiana, heard on this floor?

Mr. COATS. Madam President, this is 100 percent different from the time I was here the first time. We were able to offer any amendment to any bill at any time and the majority leader, both Republicans and Democrats, allowed us to do that. This is the first time I have had the experience of not being able to offer an amendment. I think I heard the majority leader object, but I was not sure. Did he object to my unanimous consent request?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss today's vote, as others who have come down here. First of all, it is important to understand that this was a vote on whether to start debate. I was one of those who joined several of my colleagues saying: Yes, this ought to be debated. It was not a vote to pass or not pass the legislation. That will come. But the frustration that so many of us have had over this past year in particular of not being able to participate in the process of legislating boiled over at the end of the year and ended with a change in the rules in the way the Senate has operated for more than 200 years and stuffed the desires of the minority to be able to participate in certain areas regarding nominations. Now there is some talk about doing the same for legislation. That frustration has led many of us to try to rethink: How can we get back to what is called regular order--the way the Senate has always operated in the past, the way it operated when I came here in my first tranche in the Senate. I started in the House of Representatives back in 1980. I was part of a minority for four straight terms. There are majority rules. If one is in the minority, they do not have a whole lot of authority. Maybe at that time we held the White House under Ronald Reagan. He had the ability to go above a Congress which did not support him but went to the American people, and through their efforts many changed their minds in the majority party and supported the policies of President Reagan. When I came to the Senate in 1989, I was asked: What is the difference between the House and the Senate? You are in the minority in the Senate. You were in the minority in the House. I said: The difference is like going to legislative heaven from a place a lot lower than that in the House, because any Senator, majority or minority, had the opportunity to offer an amendment, to offer an alternative, to offer a statute, to participate in the effort to pass better legislation. Any Senator had that in the minority. The majority leader, then- Senator George Mitchell, the Democratic leader, honored that. It was honored throughout my term in the Senate. I was then gone for 12 years and came back. I thought I was coming back to that same process, only to find that, no, the whole process has been changed. We do not have the rights we once had. We do not have the opportunities we had. I came here to represent the people of Indiana and their wishes. Yet now I am in a position where I do not even have a chance to offer an amendment. I do not have even have a chance to offer an alternative or a substitute saying: Look. This may be a legitimate issue. I cannot support what is being handed to us take it or leave it. It deserves debate. It deserves alternatives. It deserves to give us an opportunity to try to convince our colleagues that a majority of us can work together to pass legislation. That is the kind of legislation that works, as opposed to some of the legislation we are dealing with now that has been enacted simply by one-party rule. I think looking back on the Affordable Care Act, so- called ObamaCare, those who supported it wish now that it did have bipartisan support, that it was worked out, that some of the alternatives that were presented by Republicans were debated and perhaps supported. Maybe we would be in a different position now. It is not right to characterize a vote on a procedural motion to say let's go forward and open this for debate, the opportunity to have amendments. That is why I voted for it. Unemployment insurance is a legitimate issue, policy issue to debate. I cannot support the proposal that was brought before us. But I can support going forward to discuss that proposal, to look at the alternative, to offer my own amendments and see if our thoughts, our ideas prevail. I am hoping that is what will happen. That is up to the majority leader Senator Reid. Mr. President, 2013 did not offer us very many--in fact, very few--opportunities to do that. We ended up on a very sour note in 2013. It was good we had that break and we are back, the second day of a new session of Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle reflected over this period of time on how we can return the Senate to its original intent, how we can get back to so-called regular order, so we can have legitimate debate on the floor, we can go back and forth with our colleagues. I think if we amend this, it will be a better bill. We do not think that bill is the one that ought to address this problem, but here is a substitute. Let's debate it. Then let's have a vote. Some of us will win and some of us will lose. But every one of us will have the opportunity to have their voice heard, their amendment voted on, their alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up with something constructive. So that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting for the motion to proceed, to go forward. Here we are. Now we have a chance to debate it. Senator Ayotte was on the floor speaking before me, Senator Portman, Senator Cornyn, all proposing ways in which we can offset the cost. We all know we are adding to our debt and deficit on a daily basis. We have not come to grips with that. Yet the future consequences for this country, our economy, our children, our grandchildren, future generations is something we are all going to be ashamed of if we do not try to impose some discipline. How do we do that? We made many efforts going all the way back to Simpson-Bowles. All of the major efforts, we were unable get the President's support for any of those, even though he commissioned the Simpson-Bowles group, which was bipartisan. But nevertheless, we have not yet to this point been able to get that large effort in place that will put us on the path to fiscal health. But one thing we can do is when we have programs--new programs, an extension of programs such as this--come before us, we can say: Let's, one, reform this so we achieve what we want to achieve, and, No. 2, let's make sure we do not add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit spending and our debt. Let's offset it with something. For those who say we cannot cut a penny more, for goodness' sake, the organizations--the Federal organizations, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Research Service, on and on, GAO and others, have proposed numerous ways of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for programs that are deemed wasteful and fraudulent. Senator Ayotte just mentioned specific examples, some in my State, of abuses of the system. There are concerns about abuse of the unemployment insurance, people seeing this not as a help to getting a job and getting back into the workforce but seeing this as yet another entitlement benefit they can receive without putting the effort in to get meaningful employment. We have the responsibility to bring forward measures that I think give people a connection between unemployment and their ability to get employed. That has been suggested by Senator Portman and others here. Senator Cornyn also talked about that. So whether it is an offset in order to pay for this so we do not go further in debt and use taxpayer money for excess spending, when we know over here is waste and fraud and abuse in programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary, the Federal Government never should have been involved in this process in the first place, why not take those programs that have been recommended to us by nonpartisan agencies of the Federal Government? Senator Coburn has spent his career down here pointing out excessive, outrageous, egregious waste that has gone on and a misuse of taxpayer dollars. That is not how to run a government. My State has had to face this. They have faced up to it. We made the tough decisions. Of course, there have been interest groups supporting every possible item we spend money on. But we separated the necessary, the efficient, the effective from the unnecessary, ineffective. We now have been rated as the most taxpayer conscious friendly State in the Nation. Our per capita tax impact on Hoosiers in Indiana is the lowest of any State in the Nation. We have an efficient, effective government that has a AAA credit rating, that has been deemed business friendly, taxpayer friendly, residential friendly, family friendly. It is a good place to live because we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. People are tired of spending money on what does not work. I have gotten way off my intended statement. But I guess I am expressing my frustrations over the inability to participate in the process that can bring about better use of the taxpayers' dollars and more effective government. I think I speak for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, that the way to do this is simply not to freeze out debate, not to freeze out amendments, not to freeze out the opportunity to offer alternatives. By moving through this motion to proceed, I am hoping this is a step forward to returning to a process in which we are able to do what I just suggested. This decision is going to be up to the majority leader. If he wants honest debate, if he wants the American people and all of us in this Chamber to know--to examine alternatives, if he wants to be conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars, allow us the opportunity to offer some offsets. Senator Ayotte had a specific and I think very compelling offset. If we took a fraction of the money that we would save, we can cover the cost of this extension, if that is where we think we should go. I think major reforms need to be made to this program, and we ought to be emphasizing getting people back to work rather than how to keep extending unemployment. But the two go somewhat hand in hand. There are people in Indiana and other places who have made every possible effort to get a job and have come up short. We need to be sensitive to the plight of those people, but we do not need to be sensitive to those who have taken advantage of this program and are abusing this program who simply say: I do not have to work because the government will send me a check; when I add up all of my benefits, I am doing as well as I could if I worked. That is not the kind of policy we ought to be advocating or enabling in the Senate. As I said, there are numerous alternatives or ways in which we can find a way to pay for this, if we can also put the reforms in place that mean we ought to go forward with this particular program. Let me suggest three. My colleagues have suggested others also, which I support. Any one of these could work. This program is scored at about a cost of six point something billion dollars. This is a program, a policy, which requires taxpayers, in order to claim refundable portions of the child tax credit, it would require them to provide a Social Security number. I mean, this is so elementary, it is unbelievable to discover that a government agency has said: This is not in place. In other words, if you want to qualify for a refundable child tax credit, you have to verify who you are by giving them your Social Security number, so they can check to see if this is legitimate or not legitimate. Senator Ayotte laid out a situation where people were claiming 10, 15, 20 exemptions for children who did not even live in the United States, who were not even citizens. I was embarrassed that one of examples came from my State. But I think it is true of all States. But the savings to put a good bit of common sense into a program is scored not by Dan Coats, not by a Republican Senator but by a government agency. It is scored at $27 billion. So here is a program that wants to spend $6.6 billion. Republicans say: First of all, we have problems with the program. I may or may not support extending this. But if it does get extended, surely we do not want to dump more money, more future debt, onto our children and grandchildren. So let's take this $27 billion, or a fraction of that $27 billion, and pay for this. Let me offer another option: a delay for 1 year of the individual employer mandates under ObamaCare, the legislation I introduced in the Senate. If the President has delayed the mandates for businesses, should not he offer the same delay to families and individuals as a simple issue of fairness? What is the score--$30 billion. A third option: Prohibit those who are eligible for unemployment insurance from claiming Social Security disability benefits. Under the law, one must be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits. Yet some people claiming unemployment benefits are also claiming Social Security disability benefits. We can't make some of this stuff up. Savings: roughly $6 billion, maybe more, that, if we want to support this bill, would be a pay-for. So whether it is a pay-for or whether it is the necessary policy changes to make the program more effective--including, and I would suggest, a number of efforts that have been proposed by my colleagues in terms of better connecting the unemployed with those who are seeking, with the employers. I can't tell you how many employers I have talked to in Indiana who have said: I have jobs. I have talked to others, but the bottom line is this. There are people out there who look at what I have to offer. It is not the greatest, but it is a job. It covers benefits, and it is a step forward for them. But they say: It doesn't match what I am getting from the government, so I think I will take a pass. This is not America and not the principles that made America the kind of country it is. We should not be enablers in that regard through legislation that we pass. I hope that we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move to policies that will grow and create jobs, and that we will adopt a practice of paying for new spending with offsets from known waste, fraud, and abuse that has been documented by government agencies. Can't we at least do that? Can't we at least agree, in the future interest of our country, both fiscally, domestically, on a number of issues, for all of the reasons that I have articulated or tried to articulate, this makes sense? Breaking with some of the past ways I have given my vote, I have said I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, and I going to challenge the majority leader to look at this and say let's run this place differently in 2014 than it was in 2013. Let's not be afraid of debate. Let's not be afraid of amendments. Let's let the yeas be yeas and the nays be nays. Let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case, to offer an alternative, and to be recognized. As a Member of the Senate, and the way this Senate was designed to be and traditionally for over 200 years it has been, let's move back to that. What happens next is now up to the majority leader. The ball is in his court. Had we not passed the motion to proceed with the support of Republican help, then we wouldn't have given the majority leader the need to make a decision. What kind of a Senate do we want in 2014? A Senate that is doing what the American people want us to do, representing the people of our State with their interests, representing our beliefs about how government should be run, how it should be funded, having an open and honest debate, not afraid to take votes, trying to construct good policy for the future of this country? We can't do that if this body is run by one person saying: My way or the highway. You are in the minority. Tough break. This is a chance for the majority leader. Let's give us the opportunity and return this back to the Senate it was once and always has been until lately. It is up to the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, saner heads have prevailed. I think the news that we just received brought a much more reasonable way of moving forward rather than two more all-nighters with votes every 4 hours or so. It was not pleasing for anyone, particularly during the Christmas season. It was totally unnecessary to do this, had there not been some precipitating factors. I did not come down here to point fingers. There is frustration on both sides, frustrations on the Democratic side with Republicans--but I do not think it has been explained, what caused Republicans to become so concerned and so frustrated and frankly so angry over the way that the rules were broken to change the rules, something that has been precious to this body for its more than 200 years, and that is the uniqueness of the ability of a minority to have a say in legislation, to amend or at least to offer amendments. They may succeed, they may not succeed, but to have a voice. I think those who have not served here in the past and have never been in the minority cannot begin to appreciate that right. I started in the House of Representatives where the majority rules. That is the way the Founding Fathers established that body. But they said they wanted the Senate to be different, a place where the passions could be cooled, where debate could be held, where amendments could be offered, where laws could be changed or modified. Members were given a 6-year term so they would not have the pressure of running for election in just months out or a year out; so they could step back and simply say let's look at the longer view, the larger view. In my first time here in the Senate, that practice was led by the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders. The majority changed. I came here with a Democratic leader who was eminently fair to the minority and insisted, as did many Members, none more vividly and with emotion and commitment than did Robert Byrd, the Democrat from West Virginia, who probably knew more about procedures and the history of the Senate than all the other Senators combined. Read his volumes. We would listen to Robert Byrd, respecting how he respected this institution. I experienced under Robert Byrd, then Republican Bob Dole, and then Tom Daschle, Democrat, Trent Lott, Republican--I experienced respect for the rights of the minority even though I was in the majority. They were sacrosanct. No one stood up and said let's take those rights away. Those who did were shot down by their own party. Our party made an attempt at that. Sense and reason prevailed. It was imposed by those who had been here, saying you need to understand the unique role of the Senate that has been created by our Founding Fathers, enshrined in the Constitution, 225 years of tradition and history. To have the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, come here and say we are taking that away, what we had promised to do; that is, keep the rules--we are going to break them and we are going to impose on you because you are dragging out the time it takes to secure nominations. We are going to impose on you. We are going to take away your minority rights and we are going to rule by majority. As I said, I understand the frustration that must have been felt on the other side of the aisle when Members would delay the confirmation of nominees. Why were Republicans doing that? They were doing that because the majority leader was using a technique to deny us amendments on any number of bills. Everyone here has constituent interests, their own interests. They come to the Senate, they want to move forward with an agenda. When you are in the minority you know that the chances of passing that are slim unless you get support from the other side. That is why we cosponsor with Democrats when we want to try to move something, to see if they can convince their Members to join us. That is the way this place has always worked. But under the process of the so-called filling of the tree--I know people in the world say what in the world are you talking about, filling the tree? It is a procedural method which denies the minority the right to offer amendments. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but the majority leader has imposed that time after time. So the frustration just kept building here, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, of Members who said: I came to the Senate. I don't have a voice. I do not have the ability to even bring up my amendment. What are we afraid of, taking a vote? If you cannot take a vote and go home and explain your vote to people, then you should not be here. You vote for what you believe in. You vote for what you think your State and your constituents who sent you here believe in. Some you win, some you lose, but at least you have the opportunity to make your case. So, month after month, year after year, under the leadership of Senator Reid, increasingly that right has been taken away. The frustration boils up from our feeling like--forget it. Forget 225 years of history. Forget how the Founding Fathers decided to structure this democratic function. Forget how past leaders, Republicans and Democrats, held this as sacrosanct, a right for the minority, the minority voice. Here is the party that says we got elected by a majority and therefore the minority has no say. Those who have not served in the minority will not understand the denial of the right to express your view and have it put before this body for a vote. You can get up and talk about it but you cannot get it to a vote, so talk is cheap. Until they experience that, I am afraid, they will not have an understanding of how we need to get back to what this body was intended to be. I want my colleagues who have imposed this in support of the majority leader's tactics of denying Members the ability to offer an amendment regardless of what it is for--I want my colleagues to understand that is where the frustration came from. And that is why we are trying to use whatever rules we have left to send the message that you are stiffing us. You are denying us the very right that we worked so very hard to come to have here. I am making a plea, I guess, that we sit down and have an adult conversation about how to make this place more efficient, how to make it more effective but do so in a way that allows the minority the right to participate in the process. Going through the exercise we have gone through for the last few weeks with votes every 2 hours, sleeping on cots in our office or sleeping on the couch, coming down here in the middle of the night to vote--if we are talking about something serious for the country that needs that kind of debate, I am not saying we shouldn't do that. If it is a defense bill or a critical issue, such as a fiscal issue or a foreign policy issue, that is what this place is all about. If it takes us well into the night on something substantive like that, then we want to preserve that. But it is over the nomination of a district judge-- and the statistics show that the majority party has virtually gotten every one they wanted. Just recently the Republicans said that somehow we have to send a message that we are being shut out, and we were shut out by a majority vote of the Democratic Party which basically told Republicans: Forget the history. Forget the past. Sit down. You have no role. I hope we can get back from that because it is so important for the future of this country to have a deliberative body that has the time and opportunity to debate, to offer amendments, and to fashion legislation in a bipartisan fashion. Maybe we have learned that lesson; maybe we haven't. There is a lot of rancor here right now. I am glad we came to an agreement to have two votes at 11:15 this evening, and then we will move the process to six votes tomorrow morning, and then we will be able to go home and enjoy Christmas with our families. I think the solution to this is not to throw daggers at each other but to sit down and think things through. Maybe we need to reach back to some of the writings of Robert Byrd. Maybe we need to reach back to some of the stirring words that were spoken by the majority telling their own Members: Don't go there. You are taking away the very essence of the U.S. Senate. One of the Members on the Democratic side who has many years of experience here--many more than I--made that plea. Unfortunately, it wasn't listened to by Members in his caucus. I think if we could step back and we could look at the history of those in the majority doing everything they could to protect the rights of those in the minority, we would recognize that there is a better way to go forward than what we have done here. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I know we will be voting shortly. The narrative out of the White House is that this health care plan is starting to work. That is not what I am hearing from home, and many are questioning this. The Wall Street Journal today published an analysis showing how the health care law will raise premium rates. We all are familiar with the President's promise that rates will not increase under the ObamaCare, Affordable Care Act. According to The Wall Street Journal, Americans-- particularly young, healthy adults--``could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look to buy individual coverage.'' Other groups, Oliver Wyman, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Milliman, all issued reports estimating that ObamaCare would increase premiums by up to 60 percent. On and on this drama goes with broken promises. The American people are learning and discovering promises were made when this law was passed--and all through the 3\1/2\ years leading up to where we are-- and assurances were coming from the President and the White House: Don't worry. Your premiums won't go up, period. You can keep the doctor that you have, period. It is not going to cost any more money, period. Those promises have been broken and Hoosiers are finding out about this every day. Regardless of the statements coming out--don't worry, everything is going to be OK, sort of take it to the bank, trust us--that is not what is happening on the ground. People are writing to me. They are calling our office. They are tweeting, emailing, and doing everything they can to give us these horror stories, saying: Do I have to do this? Unfortunately, they do. Edward from Chesterton, IN, said he has spent countless hours on healthcare.gov searching for a health care plan. He discovered that the plans offered under the ObamaCare exchange had expensive premiums that he hadn't anticipated. In order to afford the monthly premiums, he has to choose the plan for his family with unaffordable deductibles in order to keep his premiums at the level he can afford to pay. It is basically: Edward, don't get sick. Don't have a medical expense throughout your family every year, and you will be OK. But if you do, what you didn't pay in premiums you are going to have to pay in much higher deductibles. John from Martinsville, IN, was finally able to get on the healthcare.gov Web site. He found the bronze plan that was going to be at least $100 more per month. He doesn't qualify for a government subsidy, and he doesn't see any way this new law will be saving money for his family. John says the only thing he sees is that he now will be subsidizing the health care system even more than before the law was passed. DeWayne from Shipshewana, IN, wrote to tell me that not only is the small group health insurance plan his business currently offers not available any longer starting in 2014, but in his 15 years of administering the business health plans, he said he has never seen a rate increase this high. DeWayne's health insurance plan for him and his business employees will increase 65 percent in this coming year. DeWayne's small group health insurance is increasing 65 percent for 2014--and this is called the Affordable Care Act? I wish to give one more broken promise. William from Granger, IN, wrote and told me that his wife who works as a part-time nurse will no longer be offered health care since she works part-time. I assume they have children at home or maybe the hospital has determined they want to stay under that 40-hour workweek level, so they put her on part-time. I am not exactly sure what the case is. In any event, they have discovered they will have premiums rise from $11,544 a year under their current plan to $19,076 per year, an increase of over $7,500. He goes on to say: ``So much for [the President's promise] if you like your plan . . . if you like your doctor . . . your costs will go down by $2,500.'' William's costs go up by $7,500. This isn't only Republicans in Washington highlighting these health care costs. These are Hoosiers from all backgrounds, Republicans, Democrats, and from all walks of life, sharing their stories with me about how they are paying the price for the President's broken promises. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues as one who has received tweets and hits on the Web site, emails, phone calls ringing the phone off the hook, written letters, responses that I hear as I talk to people back in Indiana. These are not Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives; they are all of the above. They are not writing to say: Stand with the Republican Party. Stand with this. Stand with that. They are writing to say: Wait a minute. The President promised that we would not have an increase in our premiums. He promised that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor. He promised this would be affordable. Tell that to Deborah from Logansport, who said that her increases in premiums will strain an already strained budget. I think she speaks for millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans--a lot of Hoosiers, that is for sure. Doug, a small business owner from Bloomington, told me that he expects his company health insurance to increase over 30 percent next year and, he said, ``this will preclude me from providing wage raises to our employees and will make hiring additional employees much less attractive, if not impossible.'' The President promised a lot. The worst thing you can do to your constituents, the people you represent, the people who put their trust in you, is overpromise and underperform. This could be the biggest gap between overpromising and underperforming of anything any President has said in the history of the United States. And he punctuated his statements with ``period,'' meaning ``take it to the bank. Count on it. Trust me. Your premiums won't increase.'' It is sad. It is sad, but it can be corrected. We can work. We can repeal this now. We can work together on a bipartisan basis. We can fashion a reasonable, affordable solution to providing Americans who are uninsured with insurance, creating the kinds of products through an open market system, a competitive system that will deal with this problem. We do not have to keep swallowing this so-called Affordable Care Act. It simply will not go down.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, we are now in about the third day of a somewhat tortured process that was the result of a power grab that has changed the tradition of the Senate, a tradition which held for about 225 years. Republicans are frustrated with the successful attempt made by the Democratic Party under its leader to change the rules--to break the rules to change the rules. So we end up with no rule, no rule relative to protecting the rights of the minority. I know it is easy for those who have been elected in recent years and who have never served in the minority because they simply don't have the experience of what it is like to be subject to a leader and a party which basically says: We don't care what you think, we don't care what you say, we don't care what you do, none of it will be allowed unless we give you consent to do it. I know a lot of my friends across the aisle have said: It is your party that is holding things up and you are making the Senate a dysfunctional institution. What they haven't done is ask: Why are you doing this? First of all, I don't believe we are the ones making it dysfunctional, but even if one thinks that, the question has not been asked: Why are you doing this? We are doing this because we have 3 years, or more, of pent-up frustration under the leadership of this majority leader who has essentially turned the Senate into the House of Representatives. People say: Well, what is wrong with that? Majority vote rules on just about everything else we do, so why shouldn't majority vote rule here? The Senate was not set up that way. It is famously known that the Senate was set up to be a place where tempers could be cooled, passions could be cooled, something could be debated and worked on. And if major legislation is passed that affects this country significantly, it is passed in a bipartisan fashion, following thorough debate. And we have always had a provision which basically says those in the minority will have their right to participate in the debate and have their right to offer amendments. We have been shut down from offering amendments, and there has been growing frustration on our side because this is not how the Senate has worked traditionally. This has not how it has worked historically. This is not how it has worked according to the Founding Fathers' determination of protecting the Senate, giving Members an extra long term, giving Members the opportunity to use the agreed-upon rules to allow the right of someone in the minority to speak up. Democrats are going to rue the day when they made this move, when they jammed this down our throats and said: If you don't like it, tough. Because at some point the pendulum will swing, and I think maybe sooner than a lot of people think; 2014 looks like a turnaround year. If it is, they are suddenly going to find themselves in the minority, and we will see what happens and whether they will learn what it is like to be denied the opportunity to be elected to the Senate and be a Member of this body, to be 1 of 100 people who are chosen to represent their States and represent the United States of America, and yet be shut down from having any opportunity whatsoever to have a voice in what goes forward here, shut down from offering your thoughts, your amendment, and the ability to represent your State, and to be told by the majority leader: I will decide whether you can have an amendment. And, by the way, I will use procedures to make sure you can't have your amendment debated. I have had the privilege of serving on two different occasions. I came in early 1989 and served 10 years in the Senate. I don't recognize the Senate today. I came back in 2010, 12 years later, and I don't recognize this place. This is not the Senate I joined in 1989. It was under Democratic control, like today, but it is different now. George Mitchell was the majority leader at that time. The Democrats had the majority. They controlled the Senate. I had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, along with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, who is here listening to me speak, and I appreciate that. We have gone through this same experience. But when I served before under Democratic leadership I realized what the difference was between the upper Chamber and the lower Chamber. Under the genius of our Founding Fathers, the lower Chamber is elected every 2 years to represent the immediate concerns of the people of their State or their districts, and the Senate is given the opportunity to step back and take a broader look and work to fashion bipartisan support so something major that impacted the American people and impacted our constituents was debated and worked out through the process and gave us an opportunity to say: Wait just a minute. Do we want to rush to judgment or do we want to just step back and look at the larger picture? So as a minority Member of the Republican Party in 1989 and following all the way up to 1995, I enjoyed and revered the opportunities I had to represent Hoosiers. Former Members of the House would ask me: What is the difference between serving in the House and serving in the Senate? And I would say: In the House, the majority party rules and you are lucky if you can get the Rules Committee over there to allow you to have an amendment on a particular bill. Every once in a while it would happen and you would say: Wow. This is special. But in the Senate, every minority Member can offer any amendment to any bill at any time. That is a great privilege that had been afforded to us and a necessary privilege. Because without it, you get stuff rammed down your throat that doesn't have bipartisan support, and you are denied the opportunity to participate, to amend, to adjust, to be a part of fashioning something that can be accepted by the American people with support from both sides. So this boiling-up frustration that has been happening is increasing under the leadership of this majority leader, who simply says: I am going to turn this into the House. I am going to change the 225-year tradition of this institution to something entirely different, and forget it, you guys on the other side, you in the minority. You don't have the rights you once used to have. I respected majority leader George Mitchell. He was tough. He ran this place like clockwork. We were in late at nights a number of times, but every Member of the minority had the opportunity and the right to offer an amendment, the right to participate, and the right to be heard. George Mitchell, as majority leader, recognized those rights and he would say: Guys, ladies, you can offer any amendment you want. We will take it up. We will have a vote on it. You may win, you may lose, but you have that right. So the reason we are frustrated, and the reason we are using some procedures now, which are denying all of us a lot of sleep to make plans for the Christmas season with our families is that this frustration with the majority leader has boiled over. The last insult was basically saying: Forget it. Forget the rules, forget the procedures, and forget the courtesy. Forget the privilege. Forget the rights you have enjoyed for all these years in the Senate. We are going to turn this into a different place and you just take it or leave it. So we are kind of left with very few resources in being able to express how we feel. I think there is an easy solution to our problem, and it starts, No. 1, with an understanding of the frustration each side has, but it has to include the understanding of why they are frustrated. It is not just the Democrats who are frustrated with the Republicans trying to use techniques that will allow us to at least have a say in how things are working here but also frustration among Republicans. We're frustrated that bill after bill, time after time, we have amendments we would like to offer, amendments that represent the wishes of the people of our States, our constituents and we are being denied that opportunity by the majority leader.

Mr. COATS. Not everyone calls me distinguished, but I am happy to yield to someone who does but also a good friend.

Mr. COATS. I thank my colleague from Kansas. I am glad he mentioned his own personal experience and our experiences together. It is more than about the Senator from Indiana or the Senator from Kansas. It is about this institution. It is about the future of the Senate. What kind of a body are we going to be? Are we going to be the Senate which has been the Senate for 225 years, with the rights of the minority being able to be expressed? How the majority leader can look across the aisle and say: The former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the former Secretary of Agriculture can't have a say in the farm bill. It is a treasure trove of experience, it is a treasure trove of knowledge of the whole agricultural sector, and the majority leader whimsically just simply says: Because I am in power and I can tell you what you can do and what you can't do, forget it. Forget your adjustments to this. But that leads us right into the most egregious power grab of all, and that was when, under total Democratic control both in the House and the Senate and at the Presidency in White House, Democrats decided they were going to tell us how we should reshape our health care system and readjust one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy and, by the way, we have all this expertise--or we think we have this expertise--and we will wrap all this up in one 2,000-plus page bill and we will run it down your throats without any input from the other side. Oh, we had input. But the rules were adjusted, the vote was changed, and it was passed by a simple majority and, therefore, had no constructive impact from those who did not think this was the right way to address our health care system. Now look at the mess we are in. We have been talking for days about calls--not reflecting just our views but calls from constituents saying: What in the world have you done? The reason I ran in 2010 is I was so upset about two major things: One, the way the Democrats have essentially taken this health care bill: Don't worry about reading it, as Nancy Pelosi said; we will find out later. Boy, are we finding out about it later. Frankly, those who wrote it are finding out about it later. The people it has been imposed upon, the people we represent are now finding out about it later. I have a whole packetful of responses. I don't know if they are Republicans, Democrats, liberals or Conservatives. All I know is they are my constituents--I represent all of them and am trying my best to represent them--and they have flooded my office with tweets and Facebook and all this social stuff that I have a little trouble grasping right now--but emails and letters pouring in, phone calls jammed, people saying: What have you done to us? What are you imposing on us? I can go through and read horror stories about people and the broken promises. I think as the Senator from Kansas knows--we have both been in this business here for a while--you better be careful if you fall into the trap of going home and promising what you can't deliver. It is so easy to walk in front of groups and say what they really want to hear so they will like you and vote for you in the next election. It is so easy to go home and promise something that makes people feel good so they will feel good about you, but you better be careful because if you overpromise and underperform, they are going to say: Wait a minute. No one has overpromised and underperformed more than this President of the United States regarding health care. He said, ``If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.'' I bet the President wishes he had not said ``period.'' I am sure he wishes he had not said, ``If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' Thousands of people in Indiana are saying: I can't keep my doctor. Mr. President, you promised, and you said ``period.'' What does ``period'' mean? Hey, take it to the bank. Count on it. Finally, finito, no more questions need to be asked. I am telling you: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. Nothing more needs to be said. The same was said about: Don't worry, your premiums won't go up. Don't worry, you can keep your plan. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. I don't know how many hundreds of letters I have received from people who say: I love my plan. Why do you think I chose it? If I didn't like my plan, I wouldn't have selected my plan. Now those people are getting letters saying: Your plan is no good. You have to go into the government's plan. You have to go into the ObamaCare plan, and this is going to be affordable. Don't worry, folks, no money will be spent. Were we told about the $400 million that was spent just to fashion the Web site? Can you imagine how they screwed up the Web site. After 3\1/2\ years they cannot even put out a Web site. I am getting horror stories about the Web site, which are continuing, by the way. If you can't do that, how are you going to manage the program if you do get people signed up? On and on it goes. But this idea of promising, and now having these promises broken, just feeds into the cynicism and the lack of trust among the American people and in the institutions of government, their elected representatives, and in their President. That is just a cancer in this country. If you can't put your faith and trust in the promises of what is said by the people who represent you and who are making the laws you have to comply with, that is a sad day. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. COATS. If I could add to what the Senator said, if you don't like your plan and if you want something different, we will tell you what you have to like and what you don't have to like. It is no longer your choice. We will tell you what we think you need, but you can't make that decision for yourself. So here is our plan: If you look at our plans, you can pick one of those, but if you want something different and if you want to go to the insurance company for you or your employees or employee-sponsored plan, forget it because we know more than you do. We wrote the law, and we wrote the law because we don't think you have the intelligence or ability to figure out what is best for yourself.

Mr. COATS. The Senator from Kansas is a long-time friend and someone I have had the privilege of serving with and getting to know on a personal basis--he and his wife and family. We are both here with some experience under our belts, and unlike many of our colleagues who may see only one side of the story, we have been on both sides. I had my differences with Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. There was no greater defender of the rights for the minority than Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat who served his lifetime in the U.S. Senate. I wish there had been some respect for what Senator Byrd said. I can see him standing on the floor saying: It doesn't matter how partisan this is, these privileges are engraved in stone. We have learned from our Founding Fathers, and they learned through their adverse experiences throughout history about denying the minority a voice, a right to participate. This never would have happened if Robert Byrd were here. I know there are new Members who have just not experienced what it is like to be told to sit down and shut up. We will tell you what you can say and what amendment you can offer, if any. To be told time after time after time--and you know it builds. As all the bills come up and you have five things you would like to get done this year on behalf of your constituents, and you wait for the next bill to be brought up and you say: Mr. Leader, can I have an amendment on this bill? Sorry, no more amendments. I filled the tree. It is done. We are going to move forward. OK. I will go to the next one. Can I have it on the next one? Here we are at the end of the year and the cycle is over--done. Sorry. You can't represent your constituents with what you think they want to do. Maybe my amendments wouldn't have prevailed, but at least I would have been in the fight and people would have had the opportunity to put their yes or no vote on it. That way I could go home and say: I gave it everything I had. I didn't win, but I was fighting for you, and I was allowed the opportunity to do it. As it is now, we go home and say: I wasn't even allowed to express your interest--you, my constituents' interests--through offering an amendment to the bill as a Member of the minority. I mean, the history of this place, the history of Democratic leaders when they had power, is a respect for that right, for the right of the institution. It is not about Senator Coats or Senator Roberts. It is not about the current state of the Republican Party in the Senate. It is about this institution. It is about what goes forward. Do we want to turn this thing into a ``we got the power and you might as well just go home.'' That is what the frustration is. I hope the new Members who look at this and say this should be a more efficient place and we shouldn't have to go through all of this--we wouldn't have to go through all of this if they would just give us a chance to participate. But how else can we express our frustration other than at least having the opportunity to slow things down here so maybe we will be listened to? Maybe they will go to some of--I wish they had listened to Senator Levin, who has been here a long time and who is a respected Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Levin came to the floor and said ``we should not be doing this'' to his own colleagues. He made a compassionate plea, a compelling argument that we shouldn't do this. I think back to the Republican leaders and the Democratic leaders, whether they were majority leader or minority leader, and both came to the agreement that these rights need to be protected, whether it was Bob Dole, George Mitchell, Trent Lott, or Tom Daschle. I mean, all of a sudden we are cast into a situation here, which is, sit down and shut up. We have the votes. Tough. That is our frustration. And I would tell my colleagues, think about this. Think about how we can get back to what the Senate has been for 225 years, and think about what it might be like for them when they are in the minority. They are going to want to go home and tell their constituents: I am sorry, the other party rules and I don't have any power at all. I don't have any ability to represent you at all. I can't offer any amendment expressing your wishes, and we won't have a chance to get it to a vote. Senators will have to go home and say: I was denied the opportunity to even put it up for a vote. I remember--of course, Senator Roberts knows this well--how Bob Dole would say: Look, this is the U.S. Senate. We have to take tough votes. We are not going to win every one. Members are going to have to go home and explain those votes. But this isn't just a deny, don't take tough votes because we don't want to explain them back home. Step up, debate it, and vote. We might win, we might lose, but we are here to vote. We are here to give everyone a right to have a vote on how to best represent their constituents. We didn't come here to avoid votes, to hide behind a desk and say: Oh, this might affect the next election. I really came down here to talk about the debacle of ObamaCare. I have all of these letters. All one has to do is turn on the television or the radio or read the newspaper or talk to a neighbor. Unfortunately, the word is not spreading about this situation through the media, but I think even the media is realizing what a debacle this whole thing is. But all one has to do is talk to a neighbor at the bowling league or church. I got my termination letter, and I don't know what I am going to do. I have tried 21 times to get in the Web site. I can't get in. No one is talking about the fact that, ironically, those who wrote the bill--the President of the United States and his executives--are fortunate that they don't have to go into ObamaCare. I don't know why this hasn't been more publicized. Is this the ultimate in hypocrisy? To the American people: We have decided this is good for everybody except us, by the way, so we are exempting ourselves. The President of the United States, all his Cabinet Secretaries, his political appointees, his major staff, and even some of the staff who wrote the bill exempted themselves. How can they write reasonable legislation, impose it on 300-and-some million Americans and say: Well, that is not for me. It is for you, but since I am writing the bill, I can write an exemption for myself. I don't know why the media is not all over this. I don't know why we haven't had an amendment from the Democratic side saying: This is wrong. How do we go home and tell people that my President and my majority leader's staff is exempt and it will not be imposed on all of us?

Mr. COATS. No, it is not as if we haven't tried.