Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, article II, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President of the United States ``shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'' Every President, dating all the way back from George Washington to our current President, has provided this to Congress on a yearly basis. So the State of the Union Address, which will be presented tomorrow by the President, is the continuation of a great tradition in our American government. But the State of the Union is more than just about the current state of our Union. It is about the future. It is about presenting to the American people a vision of what our country should look like and how we can get there. So before the President makes his case and sets out his priorities for the Nation, let's recognize where we are today. What is the state of our great Nation today? Today, America is nearly $16.5 trillion in debt--an increase of $6 trillion since the President took office in 2009. Today, we are borrowing $40,000 per second. Just in the time I took to say that, we borrowed about $40,000. And every 10 seconds that goes by is another $400,000 that is being borrowed and, therefore, has to be repaid with interest. Today, more than 12 million American people are looking for work, and that does not include the countless number of people who have given up looking. And today, critical benefits and programs that our seniors and retirees need are on track to become unavailable. Hovering around 8 percent unemployment for 49 months is a crisis that cannot be ignored. Sadly, it has, and it has become the new norm. We cannot allow that to happen. Spending $1 trillion beyond our means each year is outrageous and unsustainable. And failing to address our massive national debt by careening from crisis to crisis in this body called Congress over now the last more than 2 years is a terrible way to run a country, to run a business, to run a family, to run anything. So tomorrow night the President will tell the American people how he plans to lead, how he plans to turn this ship around and guide us to safer seas. We will not have the blame game and finger pointing. That does nothing to help us find solutions. While jobs and economic recovery received barely a passing mention in the President's second inaugural address, I hope the President tomorrow evening will focus on the specific ways he will work with Congress to fix our Nation's fiscal house so we can strengthen our economy and help get Americans back to work. There are four major topics I hope to hear from the President when he speaks to the American people tomorrow evening. First, leadership. Time and time again, the President has refused to engage on meaningful action that would help us reduce the debt and spur economic growth. He continues to blame Congress for inaction but yet does not offer his own plans. Tomorrow night, the President needs to show the American people he is ready and fully willing to engage in the effort to lead us out of this malaise of economic uncertainty. Second, recognition that spending is a problem. I hope the President will be honest with the American people about the extent of our spending problem and offer specific solutions. It is impossible to say with any credibility whatsoever that this gigantic bureaucracy cannot find waste, mismanagement, misuse of funds, duplication, egregious excess spending, and each agency of this government not commit to doing what is essential by trimming out the unessential. This is a bureaucracy beyond description, and there is waste and plenty of money, as Senator Coburn and many others, including myself, have been down here talking about--clearly, spending on things the American people do not fully support, and if they knew the full extent of what the duplication was, they would demand changes. There is a real pot of funds to reach into in that regard, in order to deal with our crisis, in order to reduce and make our government more effective and more efficient. The President keeps promising the American people that he will reduce the debt through a balanced approach. However, whenever he is asked for a plan, all we hear back is a call for more taxes. The President got what he wanted in the fiscal cliff--well over $600 billion of new taxes. And those will be added to taxes that will hit Americans as a result of the health care law. Included in ObamaCare is $1 trillion of new taxes--that has not been mentioned here, nor does the President mention it--$500 billion of which will directly affect the middle class. So now it is time to look at the so-called other side of that balance. We need President Obama to offer a plan for serious spending reform. People whom I represent in Indiana and the American people will not support another tax increase. Spending, Mr. President--out-of- control wasteful spending by the Federal Government--is what must come next. Third, reforming Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. I was pleased to hear the Senator from Michigan state that for 2 years he has been saying and committing to work to reform these programs. None of us here wants to see benefits that the American people, under Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, are entitled to--none of us wants to take those away. We want to try to save those programs. But we all understand those programs are careening toward insolvency, and without reforms those who rely on those benefits will not receive those full benefits; and those who have to pay into them to keep those programs solvent will see dramatic increases in their taxes. Reform for mandatory spending, particularly for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is something nobody wants to talk about. It is supposed to be the third rail of politics--touch it and you are gone. But this is the reality we face that we must address and have the will to take care of. And we need to address it now. So I am hoping tomorrow evening the President will say he wants to lead a responsible bipartisan effort in terms of preserving these programs for not only those who are currently beneficiaries but for those future generations who will need funding to support their needs as they retire and grow older. Fourth, progrowth policies. I hope the President will present specific ways to grow this economy and create jobs. We just heard some discussions here by the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan about closing loopholes and Tax Code reform. Once again, here is something on a bipartisan basis many of us have been talking about. A Democrat from Oregon, Ron Wyden, and a conservative Republican from Indiana, Dan Coats, have joined together in putting forward a progrowth, competitive, comprehensive tax reform program. We agree closing egregious loopholes is very much a key to begin to present a more simple, a more fair, a more balanced Tax Code for our corporations and for the American taxpayer. What our plan does is not, though, taking the money gained from closing those loopholes and simply giving it to the government and saying spend more. We take it and use it to make that Tax Code more fair, to reduce rates so we can be more competitive, so we can spur economic growth and put people back to work. American corporations pay the highest tax rate of any of the 36 countries in the world that are our direct competitors in terms of selling overseas. We have just moved into the last, the worst spot here, as one country reduced their tax rates significantly below what our corporate entities pay. So we want to lower those to make our companies more competitive, and that simply means that Americans have more jobs because we are exporting more goods to the rest of the world. By removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, we can also make it fair and more competitive, and we can usher in a new period of economic growth and bring new opportunity to many unemployed Americans. I am looking for those four points. There may be more, but I think those are the four major issues that need to be addressed. I trust the President will come to this same conclusion. This is not an easy time for our country. We face many difficult challenges that demand bold solutions and demand real leadership. But, as I have said many times before on this Senate floor, these challenges, although great, are not insurmountable. Republicans stand ready to work with our Democratic colleagues to address these critical and pressing issues. But, in reality, we cannot achieve the necessary solutions if the President continues to lead from behind and if he continues to say all that is needed is more tax revenue. Now is the time to act on a long-term plan to address our dangerous debt and record high unemployment. Now is the time to rise above petty politics. Now is the time for gamesmanship to be taken off the floor. Now is the time to just get it done. We owe it to every American still looking for work. We owe it to every college student hoping to use his or her skills in the workplace. We owe it to every child born today who will be saddled with $50,000 of national debt. And we owe it to previous generations who have sacrificed so much to provide us with the opportunities our generation has enjoyed. I hope the President will show us tomorrow that he is ready to lead. After all, he is the leader elected by the American people. We cannot solve our problems and enact a path to growth and prosperity without his engagement. This is the hope and change the American people are looking for tomorrow evening. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Indiana has a lot in common with Kansas, so I don't mind that label. I have been in the chair and made similar mistakes, so that doesn't bother me. We have a lot of similarities between Indiana and Kansas. We each hope to have a Final Four team in the basketball tournament coming up in the Final Four. We have some competitive teams, so it is a nice blend. The Economy I would like to speak about the sequestration issue that is facing us as a Congress in the next few weeks. But, first, let me just say, I returned from the National Prayer Breakfast. Several of our colleagues were there: Senator Sessions, a Republican, and Senator Pryor, a Democrat, representing Alabama and Arkansas, but more importantly they are cochairs of the Senate Prayer Breakfast. They led the effort today. Both the House Prayer Breakfast group, which meets weekly, and the Senate Prayer Breakfast group, which meets weekly, supports and puts together the annual Prayer Breakfast. People from more than 160 countries and all 50 States attended. It is quite a remarkable event. Beyond the socialization and bringing people together around the issue of faith and prayer, we find in our weekly Prayer Breakfast meetings in the Senate and the House that it is the one time when Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, people of no particular ideology, get together and talk about the common interest on the basis of their faith. It is always very refreshing to do that, and it was a pretty remarkable session this morning. Senator Schumer from New York read from the Old Testament, and our former colleague, Senator Dole from North Carolina, read from the New Testament. Dr. Ben Carson, head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University--recognized as one of the world's leading pediatric neurosurgeons--spoke to us. I heard him 16 years ago. What a remarkable life story. What a remarkable impact he had on the crowd that was there. He talked about political correctness and how it is detrimental to the kind of honest, straightforward debate we need in this country over any range of issues, from our religious beliefs to our political beliefs. He talked about how we need to be willing to be transparent and honest with the people we represent, to speak out about what we believe in and how healthy the debate is even if we come to different positions on separate issues. That is one of the reasons I have been coming down here virtually every day since the Senate came back into session for the 113th Congress. I come here to talk about what I think is one of the challenges--if not the leading challenge--facing us in this 2-year term. Without question, our fiscal crisis and debt has an impact on our people and on the economy, but more importantly, on our people. This has an effect on the average family in America and the young people coming out of high school and college who are looking for a job. The impact of this more than 4-year economic malaise started with a deep recession. It is now getting to the point where our growth is far below what we need to get everybody back to work and get the economy moving again on a good upward path. We are looking for solutions to the root of our problem. This body, along with the House and the administration, has been dealing with this for well over 2 years. We have been trying to find a solution to get us on the right path to fiscal health. We have taken several steps in that regard, but each step has come up short. There have been several one-step-forward and half-a-step-back efforts, but most of it has simply been pushing it down the road and saving the big debate for another day. In August 2011 we ended up passing the Budget Control Act, which addressed the debt ceiling at that time. Through that the administration first proposed--President Obama proposed--a measure known as sequestration, which was designed to force the Congress to step up to the plate and deal with the real problem. The real problem is continued deficit spending at a record level that has accumulated year after year. We are now at the point where the clock is ticking. We have a $16.5 trillion debt which is up from nearly $5.5 trillion in just the last 4 years. The math proves and history clearly shows that this is unsustainable. This is the great challenge before this Congress. We need to do what is necessary to get on the right path to fiscal health before it all comes down. We had a warning shot fired across our bow in 2009 as to the distortions in our economy, and the consequences were grave. We have warning shots being fired every day from virtually across the Atlantic as to what the European Union and the European nations are trying to deal with because they allowed their deficit spending, their debt, and overpromises by politicians to constituents to continue, which simply cannot be fulfilled. Now the bank is running out of money. We simply don't have the resources to continue to pay the debt, and the interest on the debt gets worse every day that goes by. So we had this Budget Control Act in 2011 that included an enforcement mechanism called the sequester, which is simply an across- the-board cut. However, the sequester was not an across-the-board cut. It was heavily weighted in cuts to defense. There were exemptions to the major drivers of our debt and deficit, which are the mandatory spending programs. Let me be straight and say the things we are not supposed to say because it is political suicide: If we don't reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, it doesn't matter what else we do, we cannot solve this problem. That is the conclusion of just about everyone in this body. More importantly, it is the conclusion of everyone who doesn't have a political stake in mind. Analysts and economists who look at our fiscal plight and the history of economic performance and nonperformance all come to the same point: We need to address and reform mandatory spending programs. We don't want to impose sacrifice and pain on people; we want to save them from much greater pain down the road. We need to reform programs so they are viable and so that people who are contributing to Social Security and Medicare on every paycheck will be able to receive those benefits when they need them in retirement. To save those programs and to keep from denying people their hard- earned benefits, we need to take steps and we need to take them sooner rather than later. The Medicare and Social Security trustees keep giving us additional warnings to do it now. It will be less painful than doing it later. It will help keep us from making Draconian cuts to benefits or Draconian increases in taxes that will break the back of the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, the supercommittee that was formed--six Republicans and six Democrats from each body--was unable to come up with a solution. As a result of that, we have this sequester--across-the-board cuts with certain exceptions--that is to occur soon. It has been delayed once before and now. March 1 is the new date. We need to step up and put together the big plan that will get us on the path to fiscal health. Republicans in the House of Representatives have been proposing and putting forth their plans, but we have had nothing come out of this body. Unless there is support from both Houses, nothing can be accomplished, and this will fail. Frankly, we have had a lot of rhetoric coming out of the White House about what we need to do, but we have had no serious attempt to address the part of the equation that needs to be addressed, and that is the excessive spending over the years that we have put into law. As politicians, we have made promises to our constituents over the years which we know cannot be fulfilled. It is time we stand up and be honest with the American people. We need to be transparent and basically say: Folks, we have a problem. It is simple math. We cannot continue to borrow $1 trillion or more a year and be in a sound fiscal position. We have to take some steps to address that problem and that challenge before us. If we don't begin that process now, we are going to see devastating across-the-board cuts. It will have very detrimental effects on our national defense and national security because it is so heavily weighted to slash those areas. The major three contributors and drivers of the debt are the entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If those are not addressed--no matter what else we do here--we cannot solve the problem. Yet the political tendency is to simply pass it along, push it down the road, and get past the next election. It apparently is too politically dangerous to stand up and say these things and be honest with the American people. Well, I think the American people know better and are telling: We are ahead of you. We understand the problem, and we want results. We want you to work together, find a solution to this problem, and put it before us. It is our responsibility to go out and present the plan. But without the President's support, despite his rhetoric--all we hear from the White House is that more taxes will solve the problem. They just got $630 billion worth of taxes from the fiscal cliff deal. The President's commitment and obsession with taxing the rich and the job creators was fulfilled, and the top percent--the people he described in his campaign and afterward in the negotiations-- are now paying higher taxes, but that does not begin to even come close to solving the problem. So what we need to do is be straightforward with what it is we must do and not be afraid of being honest with the American people. There is now talk about delaying, once again, the sequester. So whether it is the debt limit, whether it is the spending bills, or whether it is the budget, we keep hearing: Push it down the road. Do it some other time. It is too painful to do now. I would suggest the time to do it is now. Even though the sequester is imperfect, even though it imposes more pain and more detriment to one of the essential functions of government; that is, providing for our national security, which is part of the reason I opposed the Budget Control Act, these cuts are going to take place and need to take place if we don't come up with a better solution because it now is the law. I am pleading with my colleagues: Let's not do this in a way that is not the soundest way to reduce spending and achieve what we need to achieve. By the way, while the sequester, once again, will be an important step forward, it doesn't begin to deal with the real problem. The real problem is finding the political will and courage to be honest with the American people and pass a fiscal package that will reassure investors, consumers and the world that the United States of America has finally taken the steps necessary to address the cause of our debt and put us on a path to return to fiscal soundness. I think, given our position in relation to where we are with other nations, this type of package would result in an amazing increase in our economy, get people back to work, and send the message that America can return to its place of leadership in the world because it has gotten their economic house in order. Without that, we will continue to decline, which will have consequences not only for our generation but for generations to come. This also would have potentially dangerous consequences for security around the world because of our inability to lead. It would have serious consequences for young people and for middle-aged people and others who simply want to get back to work. They simply want to get back to a place where they get a paycheck at the end of the week so they can cover the mortgage and save money to send the kids to school and so they can make those necessary payment commitments to lead the kind of life they are aspiring to lead. Without Congress taking action, they are going to continue to live under this cloud of uncertainty about our future and people are going to continue to struggle to find meaningful work. It all comes down to the individual and to families. It doesn't come down to some accountant's balance sheet. It comes down to the pain and suffering so many people have gone through over the past 4 years and are continuing to encounter because of our lack of responsibility to take the necessary steps to go act. I am going to keep talking about this. I am going to come to the floor and talk about how we can potentially achieve a much leaner, more effective, and efficient government. I am going to use as a model not just my State but many States with Governors who have had the courage to step forward and do what is necessary to put their State in fiscal balance, in contrast to other States that are doing what we are doing; that is, pushing the tough decisions down the road and trying to deal with it at another time. As we go through the Federal budget, there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars simply being spent in the wrong place, simply going to programs that are no longer effective and efficient if they ever were in the first place. We are not making priorities in terms of how we spend our money. Senator Coburn and others have been down to this floor talking about egregious examples of overspending, of bloated bureaucracy, talking about programs that perhaps had a value at one point in time but are simply not doing the job anymore and are not necessary. We have been talking about the kinds of things that ought to be done at the State and local level rather than the Federal level. We have been talking about how Congress needs to stop making promises to people that everything we spend is for a vital, national purpose if that isn't the case. We need to do some serious triage and take a serious look at how we spend taxpayer dollars. We can come up with money to offset necessary programs. We can come up with money to lower the demands so we don't have to continue to go to the American people and say we have to raise your taxes one more time. We have said that too much. The burden is not tax revenues; the burden is dealing with our spending issue, and part of that has to be dealing with the mandatory spending that is ever driving this deficit and debt. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today, as I have virtually every day since we have been back in session, to address what is perhaps the most critical question facing this Nation: how to rein in the out-of-control Federal spending that threatens to bankrupt the country and saddle future generations with a burden of debt that will dramatically reduce the quality of their lives. Yesterday morning on ABC's ``This Week with George Stephanopoulos,'' Senate Majority Leader Reid claimed: ``The American people need to understand that it's not as if we've done nothing for the debt.'' I would argue that the American people do understand, but what they disagree with is the majority leader's statement that we have done something to reduce the debt we are accumulating at a record rate. We all know we are spending nearly $40,000 of taxpayer money per second. We know it has now been 1,377 days since we passed a budget in the Senate or one has even been offered by the Democratic leadership. Our debt continues to accumulate and now stands at nearly $16.5 trillion, and anybody who looks at the debt clock sees that the numbers are rotating faster than the eye can see. So, no, I don't agree. I don't think we have done much to address our debt. And rather than recognize the real problem of our debt, which is spending, the majority leader talked about the need for yet more taxes and higher revenues. After all the debate about making the wealthy pay more in order to pay down our debt, the fiscal cliff deal barely changed the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook, particularly if spending continues on its present course. A report from the Peterson Foundation released this week puts U.S. debt on a track to reach 200 percent of gross domestic product by 2040. Keep in mind that many respected economists--economists without a partisan position to promote, those who have looked at this impartially--have said to us that historically, without exception, once a nation's debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, it becomes very damaging to the economy, and it is something I believe we are now experiencing the early phases of in America. So 200 percent of GDP, if we stay on the present course, will take this country and our economy down, and it will take away our ability to provide the needed and necessary functions of the Federal Government. The plain fact is that our debt is going to continue to spiral upward until Washington tackles its spending addiction. The President and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are claiming that in the last few years they have already cut the budget to the bone. These so-called savings they talk about are savings anticipated by drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that are already set to wind down. So we can't just simply say: Well, we have solved the problem because we are now going to take this money which we anticipate we won't have to spend. By the way, that assumes there will be no more overseas contingent operations that will have to take place in the next 10 years. If we look at what is happening around the world, if we look at the instability and threats that are happening around the world, it is pretty hard to assume we simply don't or won't need to spend any money over the next 10 years to address something that is a direct threat to the United States. All of this basically says it is pretty hard to take seriously the suggestion by the majority leader and the President that we have done our job in cutting spending to reduce the debt. If I were able to take the time to list the wasteful catalog of duplicative spending and wasteful spending of the taxpayer dollars on this floor, I would use up the rest of the day--and more. But let me mention a few examples from my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, who I think has done this body and the American public a great service by delineating and outlining some of this unnecessary spending of taxpayer dollars and giving us a route and a roadmap and a pathway towards addressing unneeded wasteful spending of tax dollars, particularly at a time when we are having to borrow nearly 40 percent or more in order to keep our government functioning. This spending Senator Coburn has listed comes out of official government reports--the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and other government entities. These have been documented by our own official national government agencies: There is $1.6 billion spent annually to maintain unneeded Federal property. If it is unneeded, why do we have to maintain it year after year at a cost of $1.6 billion? Let's put a ``for sale'' sign up there and receive some revenue from these assets that are documented as being unneeded. Another $1.6 billion is spent by the Federal Government to provide free cell phone service. Now, the Congress passed legislation for certain categories of low-income people to receive free cell phones. Whether you are for that or against that or voted for it or voted against it, what has been laid out here is the fact that many of these phones are going to people who don't qualify for this handout, and hundreds of thousands of those go to people who already have at least one phone. Offer somebody a free second phone, and they are going to grab it. But do they need it, and does the taxpayer need to pay for it? Also, $50 million of taxpayer money went to the IRS for a public relations effort to try to improve its image with taxpayers. Good luck with that PR program. I think we know their opinion of the IRS. And is this really a necessary expenditure? The IRS sent a prisoner who filed a bogus tax return a refund for $327,456, and they even sent it to the correctional facility. You would think that somewhere along the line, somebody would say: Maybe we ought to look into this. Hopefully we will be able to get this one back, along with $30,000 that was sent to a jail where a murderer collected $30,000 in claimed unemployment benefits. Well, yes, he was unemployed, but that is not exactly what our unemployment system is designed to do. So while we are going after the $327,000, maybe we can collect this $30,000 on the way. Every day we hear of reports of food stamps being used to pay for beer, cigarettes, cell phone bills, and even cars. That hardly needs to be mentioned because it is something we have come to understand--there is a lot of misuse of tax dollars. On and on it goes, and I could list more and more. Just the other day, Senator Coburn listed some duplicative programs, and he thought: Well, maybe we don't need multiple numbers of these. Maybe we can consolidate. We have 18 domestic food assistance programs, 45 separate job- training programs. And I love this one, my personal favorite--more than 50 financial literacy programs provided by the Federal Government. The first question we need to ask is what does the Federal Government have to say about financial literacy, given our current financial situation? Hopefully it is using its own dysfunction as an example of what not to do. These outrageous spending items and duplicative Federal programs are not isolated examples. Just a few weeks ago the Treasury Department issued its year-end report for fiscal 2012. One of the bombshells in this report that has received virtually no coverage or commentary is the estimate by the Government Accountability Office that $108 billion was lost to improper payments by the Federal Government. Since over one-third of all Federal spending wasn't even examined yet by the GAO, the total amount lost obviously will be much higher. The fact that this escaped the notice of much of the media and many of my colleagues is very telling. Unfortunately, we are so used to the notion of inefficient or wasteful Federal spending, a government report verifying over $100 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't even register. When my colleagues come down to offer amendments and are voted down, amendments to offset spending for new programs such as disaster relief and a cacophony of rejections comes their way saying, ``How dare you even think about trying to offset this, you are taking money away from babies and children and mothers and essential functions of the Federal Government?'' Then you start to read down the list of wasteful programs and duplicative programs and they say they cannot come up with a dime to offset needed expenses. Let me say we are not here to undermine or destroy the necessary function of running an efficient government. But the key word is efficient. We want to spend taxpayers' dollars in a way so taxpayers understand we are doing the best to spend their hard-earned dollars on essential programs. I have suggested to the Appropriations Committee that each program for which we appropriate money be put through a system of what I call triage. We ask each agency before it presents its budget to us, annually, for the appropriations to pay for their expenses and distributions, that they first address this question: Is this an essential function of the Federal Government? Is this a function we might like to do but can no longer afford to do? And separate that from those we no longer need or never should have been put there in the first place. At a time when we are suffering from the plunge into deficit spending and debt, should we not apply some standards and principles as to where and how we allocate funds that are sent to us by the taxpayer? I have asked each agency to do that. We have not received any reports back. All we hear, from a number of voices around the town, is: Oh, no, we cannot touch any of this; every dime we spend is absolutely necessary. I think what Senator Coburn has begun to do and what I hope to do, and to work on with him and others, is to identify some of those areas and literally ask the question to my colleagues and to the American people: Do you think this is an essential function of the Federal Government? Is this something that maybe we would wish to do but do not have the money to do? Or is this something that, frankly, has not lived up to its promise, is wasting money, or is this something that never should have been passed in the first place? If we do not apply those principles to our future spending, we are going to continue down this road. We all know the big three--Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare--have to be reformed to save these programs, but have to be reformed because they are unsustainable in their current form. I will be talking much more about that later. But what I do want to acknowledge here today is that without getting to those programs, which we have to do if we are going to solve our long- term problem, we also need to seriously look at how we spend money on all the discretionary spending that comes before this body. We have to look at those things that simply do not measure up in terms of a responsible way of handling our taxpayer revenues. I am going to continue coming to the floor, I am going to continue pointing out areas where I think we can save money, and continue to make the case that this Congress has not begun to do the job it needs to do in terms of dealing with our spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send my sympathy and empathy to the Senator from Maryland. Having gone through the same thing, I fully understand what she is dealing with and trust she will recover quickly. Picking up where I left off, dare a politician stand here and acknowledge this? Many don't want to. But the truth is this: The main driver of our debt and deficit spending is the runaway mandatory spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Despite those who claim it is political suicide to touch these programs and despite the fact none of us are saying we should eliminate these programs, this is an area where many don't want to tread. But I believe these programs, which provide much needed benefits for many Hoosiers and Americans, need to be preserved. But our goal and our challenge is to find common ground on not how to eliminate these programs but how to save these programs, both for current retirees and for future generations. If we don't take steps to reform these programs, we risk not only bankrupting our country, we risk having to tell the recipients of the benefits of these programs we no longer can fulfill their needs and our propositions. It is difficult for me to support any effort to increase the debt limit when we continue to avoid taking the necessary steps to eliminate deficit spending and control our debt in the future. Despite several bipartisan attempts over the last 2 or 3 years, including efforts by the Simpson-Bowles Commission--the President's Commission--the Gang of 6 and the supercommittee of 12, we have failed to put together a credible, long-term deficit reduction package. How then can we continue to raise the debt limit over and over again without agreeing on a way to reduce it in the future? Repeatedly and thoughtlessly raising the debt limit represents a political moral hazard, a taxpayer bailout for big government politicians who don't want to be bothered by controlling spending. Congress continually increasing the debt limit is akin to consumers having the ability to increase their own credit borrowing limit with no oversight. We just keep increasing the credit limit to pay for more and more spending. It reminds me of a parent dealing with an irresponsible teenager who was given a credit card, asked to stay within the credit limits but month after month after month continues to exceed the limit as the debt piles and the interest on the debt accumulates. Eventually, the parent has to take away the card and take the scissors and cut it up. At what point do we in the Congress take the congressional credit card, cut it up, and get control of our spending? I urge my colleagues and the President to focus not on how to get enough votes to raise the borrowing limit again but on how we can truly begin the essential task of eliminating deficit spending and reducing our debt as a percentage of GDP. Part of what makes America so remarkable is we have the ability in this great country to control our destiny. The problems we face are not insurmountable, but they are not avoidable either. It is time we take a stand and do what the people we represent sent us to do. It is time we make the changes we pledged we would make when we were seeking office, and it is time we take control of our country's financial future and put America on a path to prosperity. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. I was hit by it 2 weeks ago so I fully understand what the Senator is going through.

Mr. COATS. In deference to the Senator from Maryland, I went through the cold-and-cough crud that caused her to begin coughing, so I fully understand why she needed to take a break. I am more than willing to step aside when she comes back. In the interest of time, since I am next up--I know we are trying to move toward a vote at 12:15 p.m.--I wish to proceed. I will be happy to suspend when the Senator gets back. This afternoon the Senate will vote on a bill recently passed by the House to suspend the debt ceiling for 4 months. First, I wish to commend the House on one aspect of the legislation, which I strongly support, and that is the suspension of salary for Members of Congress if we do not pass a budget by April 15. As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, Congress, by law, is required to pass a budget. It has been nearly 4 years since it has done so. As a result, the Senate has blatantly ignored its legal duty, not to mention its moral duty, to enact a budget. This is completely irresponsible, and, quite frankly, it is embarrassing. If this body cannot fulfill its most fundamental duty under law to pass a budget, then I say we don't deserve to get paid. However, another aspect of the bill that would suspend enforcement of the Federal debt limit until at least May--and according to recent statements issued by the administration possibly until August--concerns me. I understand why the House is taking this approach for political and tactical reasons, but unfortunately, this decision only continues the practice of governing from crisis to crisis, cliff to cliff, and pushing through flawed, haphazard legislation at the last minute as we did with the vote on the fiscal cliff, which is a great example of how this body should not function. As a result of this practice, Members are left deciding between choosing the lesser of two evils. Never again will I, nor I believe many of my colleagues, support any legislation that is negotiated in secret, bypasses the regular process where we have an opportunity to take it up in committee and amend it, if necessary, and then present it to the Senate for debate and evaluation or amendment. Never again will I support something that takes us into the wee hours of the night into New Year's Eve and New Year's Day and then just have a few minutes to try to evaluate it with no debate and no opportunity to amend. This is no way to govern a country. It is no way to strengthen a weak economy and spur job creation, and it is no way to restore confidence among consumers and investors, which is such a critical factor in making for robust growth, which we are not enjoying right now. Eventually all of us have to stand up and say enough is enough. Pushing these debates up until the last minute, creating our fiscal cliffs, and passing short- term measures must cease. The people of Indiana have had enough. Across the country the American people have had enough of Washington postponing real action on the most serious challenge facing our country, namely the out-of- control plunge into further deficit spending and debt. Both Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress, liberal and conservative economists and nonpartisan people, all agree that our continued increase in debt is unsustainable. We all know that what has been fueling this fire that has engulfed our fiscal house is spending. To date our meager efforts to deal with this looming fiscal calamity are like trying to put out a five-alarm fire with the occasional squeeze of a squirt gun. I note that the Senator from Maryland is on the floor. If she wishes to resume, I would be happy to suspend my remarks.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, even though the confirmation hearing regarding the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense is going on before the Armed Services Committee, I would like to make some comments in terms of my thoughts regarding his potential appointment and the conclusion I have come to based on the 130 pages of written answers to questions posed to Senator Hagel by the Senate Armed Services Committee and some of the information I have gleaned, as my schedule has allowed, from his testimony before the SASC--ongoing, as I said. Based on his written answers and what I have heard so far, it is clear that Senator Hagel is willing to execute the policies established and endorsed by the President. But the idea floated out of the White House, what the President has described as bipartisan balance--that is why Senator Hagel was selected--to consideration of these critical issues before us regarding the role of the next Secretary of Defense, doesn't hold water. As I said, Senator Hagel has essentially indicated on a number of occasions--through his written answers and through his answers to the SASC committee--that he is in line with the President's policies and, in fact, in some cases, to the left of some of those policies. It is obvious that I and many of my Republican colleagues disagree with many of the views and policy positions taken by the administration and Senator Hagel. This is to be expected. Most policy differences should not be sufficient reason to oppose a nomination of a President's preferred Cabinet appointment. Elections have consequences, and the President does have the right to his own advisers. However, this usual tolerance of alternative views has its limits. For me, the limit is when a nominee is of such a high position, such as the Secretary of Defense, and that nominee has a point of view which places the United States in greater danger, which I believe is the case for this nominee, then I think we have to ask ourselves a number of questions before we give our support and before we make our decision. Senator Hagel's views about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and the best way to counter that threat are significantly inconsistent with my own, inconsistent with America's responsibilities, I believe, at this moment in history, and inconsistent with the security needs of our country and the survival of our friends. I have been focused on the Iranian nuclear threat for more than 5 years. After I left my position as Ambassador to Germany and returned to the private sector, I joined the Bipartisan Policy Center. Together with former Democrat Senator Chuck Robb, we cochaired a project on Iran. The Bipartisan Policy Center has been on the front lines of those ringing alarm bells about the situation in Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We issued our first report in 2008 entitled ``Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.'' I was involved in producing a second, more urgent report in 2009 entitled, ``Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out.'' After I left the Bipartisan Policy Center and returned to the Senate, the organization produced two more reports on the subject, each more urgent than the last, and each demanding clearer, more vigorous, and more determined U.S. policy to avert this ever present danger. Each year since the beginning of my involvement in this Bipartisan Policy Committee project, I have become increasingly worried about Iran's continuing irresponsible and dangerous behavior and the administration's inconsistent, unsure policies to respond to this growing threat. Preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability is the most urgent foreign policy matter facing the United States and international security. The consequences of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran are not tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most powerful and effective methods and efforts possible to prevent this from happening. Based on his record as a Senator and subsequent public statements, I do not believe Senator Hagel agrees with this assessment. Since returning to the Senate, I have joined many colleagues in pressing for a robust, comprehensive, three-track effort to raise the stakes for the Iranian regime and compel it to live up to its commitments and halt its weapons program. The first track is enhanced diplomatic efforts--and I mean enhanced. We have pressed the administration to create, invigorate, and motivate a much enhanced international coalition devoted to one single objective: to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. This doesn't mean simply repeated outreaches to the Iranian regime itself to engage in dialogue. The Obama administration came into office promising such discussions, but this has gone nowhere, nor have other diplomatic efforts, either unilateral or multilateral. All such diplomatic efforts have failed--all such diplomatic efforts have failed--for nearly a decade in achieving the goal of preventing Iran from its continuous and relentless pursuit of developing nuclear weapons. Senator Hagel, whose life story brings him to a justifiable reliance on dialogue before the use of force--a preference which we all understand and we all share--has, in my opinion, an exaggerated and unrealistic belief in what dialogue and diplomacy can accomplish. This is especially so when the dialogue partner is a revolutionary regime of zealots with a self-declared historical mission rather than rational leaders of a nation state--a huge distinction between dialogue with rational states and dialogue with Iran and its irrational leadership. Senator Hagel has long called for direct, unconditional talks with the Iranian regime, not to mention direct talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria as well. He has pressed that such talks should proceed without the backing gained from other, more forceful, credible options. This approach is far too weak to be effective and reveals a person less committed to results than this critical moment demands. The second track of a comprehensive search for a solution is sanctions. I have supported all legislative efforts to create and impose both unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Iran, leveraging similar commitments from our friends and allies when possible, and pursuing unilateral sanctions when necessary. Indeed, it has been our willingness to impose sanctions by unilateral action that arguably has stiffened the spine of the international community and made increasingly harsh multilateral sanctions regimes possible. Senator Hagel does not see it that way. He repeatedly voted against sanctions legislation, even opposing those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was killing our troops in Iraq. He has long argued against sanctions imposed by the United States absent an international judgment by others that we are doing the right thing. He has not seen the connection between America's firmness, determination and leadership, and international acquiescence. It is his instinct to give a veto to Brussels or Paris or even Moscow and Beijing, and I cannot support the nomination of a Secretary of Defense who shows such deference to foreign politicians. Senator Hagel has famously agreed publicly that the United States is a bully. I assume our reliance on unilateral sanctions when necessary may fit his definition of bully. I cannot possibly agree. The third track of a comprehensive approach to this crucial problem is open discussion of, and early preparation for, military options. It has become increasingly clear over the past several years that diplomacy and sanctions alone are too weak to compel Iranian compliance with the international communities' demands. A frank discussion of military options and preparations give credibility to the rest of our strategy. No one should suppose these steps mean anything other than preparing the ground for the logical and necessary access to measures of last resort. At the Bipartisan Policy Center, I participated in an exhaustive analysis of all of the means and consequences of a potential military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program. There were no war advocates among us. Nevertheless, if it is true that a nuclear weapons- capable Iran is unacceptable, as now four U.S. Presidents have publicly declared, including the current President, then our Nation and the international community as a whole must see with vivid clarity what measures remain should the first two tracks fail to achieve the objective. The Iranian regime must be especially clear-eyed and nondelusional about those potential consequences should it not change its behavior. Indeed, to give the diplomatic and sanctions tracks the essential credibility they require, then a military option must be entirely believable if, as the President has repeatedly said, Iranian possession of nuclear arms capability is unacceptable. I cannot conclude that Senator Hagel views the military option in this credible way. Indeed, he has maintained in recent years that ``a military strike against Iran is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.'' Many of us have examined Senator Hagel's on-the-record comments carefully and parsed each one to determine what his views on these important subjects actually are. In the meantime, he has hastened to apparently amend the record so that his advocates can point to more recent statements that seem to negate the earlier ones. But this is not a court of law, and we are not looking for admissible evidence. Rather, we are defining the basis for our own judgments on how the full pattern of words and behavior define the views and likely future behavior of the nominee. In so doing, I have concluded that when Senator Hagel pays lipservice now to the contention that ``all options are on the table,'' it does not reveal his real, extinctive, and strong disinclination to consider military force if it becomes necessary. For me, that is very nearly a disqualifying position for any Secretary of Defense. A related concern is what I believe to be Senator Hagel's views about the so-called containment option. This is related to his nearly notorious views about nuclear proliferation in general. He has famously said ``the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.'' I fear Senator Hagel holds the mistaken view that a nuclear-armed Iran is more palatable than the consequences of going to war to prevent it. That is a dangerously corrosive idea. Indeed, my concern was heightened this morning when Senator Hagel, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, referred twice to his support for containment. It was only when someone handed him a note, presumably reminding him the administration's formal position did not support containment, did he correct himself and say he didn't support it either. So what are we to conclude relative to what he truly believes and where he actually stands on a number of issues vital to our national security? The supreme fallacy of the containment option as modified is that it severs the spine of all of our friends and allies who are justifiably appalled by the contemplation of real military action. They will eagerly lead toward a containment option should others fail. But we must all see clearly that, in fact, containment means toleration. A nuclear weapons-capable Iran that we believe can be contained is one that we are, therefore, prepared to tolerate. This is an illusion and one that makes our task all that much harder. If others--especially Iran, but also including our allies and other coalition partners--come to believe that we would consider ever tolerating a nuclear Iran because it can somehow be contained, then none of our efforts to prevent it will work. This is why a nominee for Secretary of Defense who is less than firm on this key point is, in my opinion, a dangerous choice. It has been said by Senator Hagel's supporters that whatever his personal views and past statements on these important issues, as Secretary he will toe the line; he will not be making these basic policies himself. In other words, those of us who find his policies objectionable are encouraged to support the nominee despite his views, not because of them. I cannot bring myself to support a nominee based on the assumption that his own views will become irrelevant once he is under the policy yoke imposed by the White House. Finally, the most worrisome consequence of confirming Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense is something on which the ayatollahs in Tehran and I can agree: The confirmation will tell the Iranian regime that their fear of U.S. military action in Iran is now unjustified. They can rest more comfortably that their pursuit of nuclear weapons is less likely to provoke the military option that, until recently, may have seemed more credible. The Iranians will, therefore, feel less constrained in pursuing their dangerous nuclear ambitions. That, more than any other reason, is why I am voting no on the Hagel nomination. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, breaking news. Just a short time ago the Bureau of Economic Analysis issued its report for the fourth quarter of 2012 in terms of our economy. I am sorry to say that the report said we have contracted--not gained, but our economy contracted--during this fourth quarter, 0.1 percent at an annual rate last fall. Here we are, about 3\1/2\ years from a deep recession, and in normal recessions recovery occurs at a significant rate. That is what gets people back to work. That is what gets our economy moving again. This is the growth we need to address our fiscal situation. Yet after nearly 3\1/2\ years of stumbling along and bumping along in the most tepid recovery since before World War II, we now learn that despite some of the optimism that has been projected lately that things are getting better, things are growing, and unemployment is going to start coming down, we get this distressing report that in the fourth quarter, the quarter where we all go out and buy Christmas presents and spend money at the end of the year, that fourth quarter contracted; it did not grow. The average rate of growth following recessions is about 4 percent growth per year. Sometimes it has been 6, 7, and even 8 percent. The average rate we have had as a Nation following the previous recession has been around a 2-percent level or even a little less. So, this is not good news for the American people. This is not good news for all those hoping to get back to work. This is not good news for those hoping to raise money to pay for their mortgage or try to keep their house or provide for their children's education going forward. This is not good news for the American people. I think it says a lot about our failure here in Congress to do what most people understand we need to do and that is to get our fiscal house in order. There is a cloud of uncertainty settled over the American economy over the last 3\1/2\ years that is destroying the hopes and dreams of young people and middle-aged people and those nearing retirement. They are worried about their savings, their ability to pay their bills, and their ability to maintain meaningful employment. If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, we need to do some fundamental things. One, we need to summon the will to address this problem--this challenge--and define it as the No. 1 challenge facing the Congress and have the political will to do something about it. Doing something about it means we start with having a budget. It has been 1,372 days since the Senate passed a budget. That is nearly 4 years. This is completely irresponsible. To deny the American people the transparency of how we are spending taxpayers' dollars and how we are addressing this fiscal situation we are in which drives us into more debt and more deficit is totally irresponsible. As I said, it starts with passing a budget. Every Hoosier family and every business in Indiana knows they cannot be successful and financially sound without creating a budget on which to operate. Restaurants and coffee shops have budgets, Little League Baseball organizations have budgets, and our communities, States must have a budget in terms of how much we are able to spend. The reason a budget is so important is it forces us to determine how we spend the revenue we have in a sensible way without having to go and continue to borrow and drive ourselves more deeply into debt. There are a lot of things we would like to do. Everyone has their priorities, their interests, such as, education, medical research, more funding for social programs, more defense funding, funding for transportation needs, paving roads, and repairing bridges. It goes on and on. We all have those priorities. These are things we would like to do, but we have not faced the fact that we cannot do everything we would like to do. We have to do the essential things and prioritize our spending at a time when we don't have the revenue to do everything we would like. It is no different than a family with financial difficulties sitting down and saying: Our annual trip to Disney World cannot happen this year. Dad's paycheck is not bringing in the kind of money it used to. Maybe they are not in the financial position to be able to do what they would like to do, therefore, they have to make some changes and adjustments. Maybe instead of Disney World, they decide to go to Brown County State Park, which, by the way, is a great place for family vacations. Priority decisions are the kind of decisions families have to make when they don't have the revenue to do everything they would like to do. We also have a legal duty--and personally I think a moral duty--to present to the American people a budget plan indicating how we are going to spend their taxpayer dollars. Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 states--and this is the law of the land--``On or before April 15 of each year, the Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year.'' When we passed that law, we didn't say Congress may pass a budget or that Congress has the ability to avoid having a budget. The word ``shall'' means we shall have a budget. Yet the failure to bring forth a budget under the leadership of this Senate for 1,372 days--nearly 4 years--has created even more dysfunction in an already dysfunctional Senate. It has helped lead to a broken appropriations process. Last year, we did not pass a single appropriations bill through the Senate, which left us with what we call continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions essentially fund the Federal Government on autopilot at previous levels without the type of scrutiny and oversight that would be administered through the regular appropriations process. This is no way to govern a country. We are not fulfilling our duty to the people we represent and, most important, it hinders any attempt at real spending reform. The Republican-led House has passed a budget annually and fulfilled their duty. We have failed in fulfilling our duty. They have presented their priorities to the public. They have described how they will rein in spending, save programs from collapse, and reform the tax system. They are being heavily criticized because they have a budget out there which tells the American people what they are going to do, and some of it is painful because we don't have the money to do everything we would like to do. People like to be able to come home and promise them everything they ask for. We don't have that luxury. Perhaps we never did, but we did it anyway. No longer do we have the luxury of being able to even think that. So all the criticism goes to the House because they want to cut this or they want to modify that or the priority decision is for one thing over another thing. In the mean time, the majority and the administration just sit back and say: We are not going to put out any numbers; therefore, you cannot criticize us. We will just go along criticizing the other team. I know Paul Ryan is again working with Speaker Boehner on a 10-year budget plan to put our country on a path to a balanced budget. They will be heavily criticized for that, but they are stepping up to their legal responsibilities and stepping up to the moral responsibilities we have to do the job we were elected to do. I mean, that is why we were sent here. The Senate is going to have to get the will to make these tough choices, which we have been avoiding for years, or the market is going to force us to act. The more we prolong the challenges we face and the longer we wait to act, the harder it is going to be. If we don't put a Senate budget plan together, if we don't lay out our priorities and create a long-term economic plan to reform our spending habits, we are going to face a debt-induced catastrophe that will make the economic downturn we experienced a few years ago look like child's play. The fact is our failure to seriously grapple with our runaway deficit spending is already having huge detrimental effects on our economy, and I just mentioned one of those. Sooner or later this body needs to stand and get this done and it starts with a budget. The President has made it clear over the past few years that when he proposed his budgets, he is not serious about leading the discussions on the fiscal challenges facing us. He didn't mention it in his inauguration address, and he has publicly stated we don't have a spending problem. How he comes to that conclusion defies credulity. Interestingly enough, by law, the administration is forced to produce a budget which has been brought before this body. It is interesting that the lack of seriousness of this is indicated by the fact that not even one Member of his own party voted for the President's budget. I am just about ready to finish. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes to finish.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, thank you. Not one Democratic Senator voted for the President's budget in the last few years. His own party didn't support his budget. It is hard for us to take the President's budget seriously, and that is why the Senate--under the leadership of Democrats--needs to put forward a serious budget, one we can debate, amend, talk about, share with the American people, get their opinion as to whether this is an important priority program or one we can use as the basis to make tough choices and explain why we made those choices. After all, that is why we are here. So why am I here? I am urging my colleagues in the majority to act. Let's do our jobs. Let's perform our legal responsibility and duty. One of the most basic duties in Congress is to create a budget so we can begin to get our fiscal books in order. It is our generation's duty also to repair our Nation's financing and ensure we are not leaving behind this dangerous debt burden on future generations. This is the time to act. This serious debt threatens our national security and the future of our country, and this is the challenge both sides of the aisle need to face. Strengthening our country and putting us back on a sustainable path will not be easy. It will require some sacrifices, but these are the responsibilities we have to address. We need to be honest with the American people. We must take the first step and it starts with a budget. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have been coming to the Senate floor just about every day that we have been in session so far this year, and I am going to continue to do so to talk about what I believe is our most pressing crisis that this body faces and that our country faces; that is, the uncontrolled runaway Federal spending and accumulated debt and how it is dragging our economy down and how it threatens to provoke a major economic disaster if it is not addressed. In previous remarks I have made on this floor, I tried to make the point that if we fail to get Federal spending under control in the short term, our economy will continue to remain in the doldrums because of this cloud of economic uncertainty that hangs over investors, businesspeople, and consumers. But I don't want my colleagues to just take my word for it. A host of experts, commentators, businesspeople, and investors around the country--and, frankly, around the world-- people from both sides of the political spectrum have been and will continue to make this same point. The message is this: Unless Washington stops punting this problem and begins to demonstrate the will to cut spending in serious ways to reduce our long-term debt, the economy will continue to limp along; investors will continue to remain on the sidelines; business owners will continue not to hire new employees; and, we will hasten the day when investors lose confidence in the United States as a worthy credit risk. I know the market has responded in a favorable way recently. I hope that continues. But the fundamentals underlying our current economy don't justify that continuing far into the future. So today I would like to quote from what others are saying, not just what a Senator from Indiana believes and has been saying on this floor. I want to talk about what they are saying about our debt and spending crisis. First, I believe we can all--or most of us can--agree with this fact: that the first and the most essential function of the U.S. Government is to defend and protect its citizens from threats to their national security. As our national debt continues to rise unrestrained, we are putting our children's future and our country's future in a very vulnerable state. Perhaps the most dire and frightening warning has come from one of our Nation's highest ranking officials, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who said: The continually increasing debt is the biggest threat we have to our national security. Not al-Qaida, not suicide bombers, not Islamic fundamentalists. According to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, someone who has made a career leading our country through tumultuous battles of war, the largest threat to our national security is our very own red ink. Erskine Bowles, former White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, also recognizes the imperative need to address our spending and debt crisis. As we all know, Bowles was tapped by President Obama to lead a bipartisan deficit commission with former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. The two men, along with the commission, proposed recommendations for a big and bold plan to reduce our long-term debt. Rather than heed some of these recommendations and build off of this bipartisan momentum several years ago, the President ignored it completely and since has done nothing and offered no plan of his own to fix our dire fiscal plight other than to propose new taxes. As I mentioned in previous remarks, the President got his tax increases on millionaires and billionaires, but no one should be fooled into thinking this solves our fiscal crisis. Recently, in an interview, former Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles rightfully criticized the administration and the Congress for not striking a significant budget deal and called that failure, ``The most disappointing thing in my life.'' He went on to say: They're bouncing from one crisis to another. . . . It's nuts. We have an enormous fiscal problem in this country. . . . We've got to put our big boy and big girl pants on and go to work. He also added: . . . the problems are real, the solutions painful, and there's no easy way out. Finally, he said: We got to do stuff that's real. I mean there's no sense in, you know, just working at the edges. . . . If we don't slow the rate of growth in healthcare programs, it's going to eat up the entire budget and virtually bankrupt the country. The warning signs and the calls for action are coming from all sectors. From the business sector, Gary Loveman, chairman of the Business Roundtable's Health and Retirement Committee, said the following: Keeping the U.S. economy from careening over the fiscal cliff was the first step, but our elected leaders must not stop there. Although economic recovery has been stalled, renewed expansion is possible if conditions are set in a comprehensive budget agreement that includes entitlement reform and long-term changes to reduce deficits. In this way we will ensure the viability health and retirement safety net for future generations of Americans. John Mauldin, president of Millennium Wave Advisors, an investment advisory firm, publisher of Mauldin Economics, and author of ``End Game,'' a book many of us have heard about and read, said this: The real issue is the deficit. The leaders of both parties recognize that the current path spelled out on our fiscal balance sheet is unsustainable. The deficit must be brought under control . . . or we will find ourselves all too soon in the situation now facing much of Europe and Japan. The options at that point become far more dire. Business owners in my home State of Indiana also recognize these dangers. Reflecting the sentiment of virtually every businessperson I have talked to over the past 2 years, Rick Zehr, a business owner in Fort Wayne, IN, said: We all need to manage our income and not borrow beyond what we can afford. I look at our country's deficit spending and it's so far beyond what the rest of us have to live like every day. As a business owner, it makes me nervous. Everyone is paying for deficit spending. Economists are sounding the alarm as well. Kenneth Rogoff, a respected Harvard economist, said: The idea that one should just ignore all these problems and apply crude Keynesian stimulus is a dangerous one. It matters a great deal how the government taxes and spends, not just how much. The U.S. debt level is a constraint. A growing number of empirical studies, including my own joint work with Carmen Reinhart, suggests that the U.S. has already reached a debt level that has been associated with slower growth in advanced countries. Our own Treasury Department and some credit rating agencies have also weighed in. These warnings alone should be enough to urge Congress and the administration to act. According to the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Report of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2012: While these projections are subject to considerable uncertainty, the debt-to-GDP ratio would continue to rise unsustainably under current policy. Can I state that again? Our own U.S. Treasury report said that while these projections are subject to considerable uncertainty, the debt-to- GDP ratio will continue to rise unsustainably under current policy. Does that not suggest to us that current policy is not working when the U.S. Treasury puts out a report saying: What the administration and Congress are doing is unsustainable? Unless we grasp the reality of what is happening with our spending and our debt, we are headed for a crisis if we are not in one already. When Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. Federal Government debt in August 2011, they said: Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty. There is that word again, ``uncertainty.'' There is that implication again: failure to take action. The time to act is now. We can no longer sit back and hope this problem is going to go away. Too many people want to just think, well, if we just sort of stumble along the way we are stumbling along, it is all going to work itself out. We can no longer, and should no longer, accept double-digit unemployment. Yes, I said double-digit. While the official number is hovering around 8 percent, we all know millions of Americans have given up looking for work, and millions of others have dropped out of the employment lines or settled for jobs below their qualifications. The real numbers are far higher, and the distress is far greater than what is admitted. This is not a new problem. It has been long recognized even by the President. In February 2009, 4 years ago, President Obama held a fiscal responsibility summit, and here is what he said: And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay--and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control. Here we are, 4 years from those remarks where the President's own budget and bipartisan deficit commission was dismissed, 4 years from the time when he pledged to the American people that he would cut the deficit in half, 4 years from the time when he said responsibility needs to be taken now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. COATS. It has been 4 years since the President made those statements, and here we are where we have added trillions of dollars of new debt--the greatest increase in the history of America, and we have ignored and pushed spending down the road without a real budget proposal or a long-term deficit plan. Experts and economists from both sides of the aisle agree that spending reductions must be a part of the equation to address our dangerous debt. The President has called for a balanced approach but is showing no signs of leadership on restructuring mandatory runaway spending. Even the Washington Post editorial board, which is not necessarily conservative, acknowledged this in a piece just recently on November 27, and I quote: Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be ``balanced,'' including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there's no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of growth in those programs. In conclusion, let me say this: There is a widespread consensus about the seriousness of this problem and the fact that we must take significant measures to rein in our deficit spending and do it now. We need a bold plan that will reduce spending, reform and simplify our tax system, and, most of all, restructure Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to preserve those benefits for future generations. In subsequent remarks, I intend to address how Congress can get with it and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. We need to create a long-term deficit reduction plan that begins by fulfilling our constitutional obligation to pass a budget, which this body has not done in more than 1,300 days. Let's be honest with ourselves--this will only happen if we, the Senate, summon the political courage and the will to engage in direct, good-faith, bipartisan efforts to deal with our Nation's No. 1 challenge. Perhaps Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton, summed it up best: There's no mystery about what we ought to do, we just need to get on with it. Mr. President, Senate colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--let's get on with it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I know there is a lot of passion here on the floor regarding this particular legislation. There is probably not a Member on this floor who has not had some semblance of a disaster in the State and for the people they represent. Sandy clearly rises to one of the top categories of something truly catastrophic, but many of us have experienced tornadoes and destruction and floods and a number of other disasters. One of the essential functions of government is to address those in immediate need and meet some of those emergency needs. With the cooperation of local and State and Federal authorities stepping up, we have been able to assure the American people that help is on the way, and hopefully help is on the way in an expeditious manner so that it gets to those who need that emergency help quickly. It is regrettable it has taken this long for some of this money to be appropriated. I personally think we could have expedited this had we gained support for an amendment I offered in December which would have immediately met those emergency needs, yet given the Congress time to work through the process of examining other aspects of the bill that, No. 1, were not related to Sandy and, No. 2, that fell on various Members' wish lists of things they wanted done for their States. Of course, that is their responsibility to do so, but we all know that when we see a train moving out of the station--a bill that is going to be passed and going to become law, there has been a temptation through the years to add unrelated matters in these types of bills knowing it is a train leaving the station and ultimately will be supported. We saw what happened during the fiscal cliff debate. At the last minute, all of these egregious examples of spending that had nothing to do with the issue itself were tacked on to the final bill. So really what we were trying to talk about here is a process that I believe and I think a number of Members believe is necessary to vet every spending appropriation that comes before this body to ensure that it meets the essential function of government, to ensure that it is not loaded with extraneous matters, and to ensure that we are careful with taxpayer dollars. This is not about ideology. This is about some very basic math that shows us that we have a decreasing capacity to address these types of emergencies and other necessary items like education, medical research, transportation to pave roads and rebuild bridges, and any number of discretionary items whose value we can debate. That is shrinking dramatically. So if we don't apply at least some discipline to how we evaluate and examine our spending, we will continue to plunge into debt and to borrow money, which is ultimately unsustainable. If we continue this type of spending without proper oversight, I think we are shirking our duty to the public. I am not down here to talk against funding for this disaster. I am down here to discuss how we, together, Republicans and Democrats, need to apply some discipline to how we make decisions. It has been a time- honored practice here to load up necessary bills with extraneous matters, and it has been a time-honored practice not to provide the oversight necessary to go back and look at how effectively we have spent the taxpayers' dollars in the past and what kinds of things we can do to ensure we don't make those mistakes in the future. I think it is also worthwhile to at least examine the possibility of paying for expenditures, particularly when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, when we are careening deeper into debt that the younger generations are not going to be able to pay off without serious adverse consequences. There is a moral issue here about what kind of country we are leaving for the future and what we are turning over to our children. I think it is worthwhile to at least acknowledge that those of us who raise these kinds of questions should not be labeled or targeted as trying to throw people on the street or not respond to legitimate needs but are simply trying to say that we need some standards here to apply to a situation where our spending is out of control. Every business in America has to do this and has had to do this these past 4 or 5 years in order to survive. Families have had to do this in order to make sure they could make their mortgage payments, or Dad has lost his job. There has been enforced discipline on the basis of an economy that has been stagnant for about 4 years. In the meantime, the Federal Government keeps plunging into debt. So if someone brings forward an alternative to at least give us the opportunity to provide effective oversight and to make sure this money does go to emergency needs and doesn't just fulfill a wish list for what some cities would like to do in the future to prevent against future storms--not that we shouldn't be debating that, but it doesn't qualify as the emergency need of getting money to the people who need it now. These are future decisions, and we haven't had time to assess those. We haven't had time to examine those in detail, and we haven't used a process that is in place in the Senate to go through committees and let the committees work through, Is this essential to meeting the emergency needs or can we set this aside and spend a little more time examining it and looking at it to make sure this is how we want to go forward? We have a habit here of throwing money at things under an emergency category, and then later finding out that, one, it wasn't an emergency where the money went; and, two, it was misspent and not effective. We just simply can't afford to keep doing this. Once again, I want to state we are not here trying to undermine funding that is needed for Sandy. So I think some of the things the House did are legitimate in terms of saying let's set aside unrelated matters. It doesn't mean we cast them into the dust bin never to be seen again. It simply means let's let those that are not emergency situations be more carefully examined in terms of whether we need that. If someone does come to the floor--as I understand Senator Lee is going to do--and offers a potential offset, let's at least look at that possibility. The debt clock is ticking, and ticking ever faster, and it is destroying the hopes and dreams of future generations. I think we have a moral responsibility to at least be as conscious and effective with dealing with the taxpayers' dollars in terms of how they are spent, whether it is an emergency supplemental related to a disaster or whether it is just a normal appropriation that comes along every year through our appropriations process. We haven't exercised that kind of discipline, and our country is going to pay a very serious series of consequences as a result of that. Most importantly, we are denying young people in this country a future that we have enjoyed but we are not going to be able to pass on to others. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Texas. I want to add my thoughts to much the same issue. I rise, once again, to address what I believe and what many believe is the most important issue that faces this Congress and faces the Nation as a whole; that issue is, the out-of-control Federal Government spending that continues to pile up unsustainable debt and threaten our economic future. Both Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals have acknowledged that unless we get the debt under control, we will eventually reach a tipping point where investors either stop buying our debt or insist on higher interest rates to account for their greater risk. This can trigger a crisis of confidence, a crisis that would likely happen if we do not take action, and take action soon to address this problem. We have witnessed what happens in a number of European nations. Greece comes to mind, of course. That country is in chaos based on promises made that cannot be kept, based on spending that could not be covered, based on a country that defied the math and the laws of economics. But it is not just Greece. I just heard earlier this morning the latest numbers on unemployment in Spain: over 25 percent and rising among all workers, and for those under the age of 25--those coming out of universities and colleges and the educational system looking to start their lives and begin their roles as breadwinners, the providers for their families and holding down a job so they can participate in life as people capable of paying their bills, buying a house, getting married, raising their children, and providing for their education-- that number for those young people is over 55 percent. More than one of every two young people in Spain is without employment--on the streets, nothing to do, no job to go to every day. We see the austerity measures having to be imposed in the United Kingdom. Italy is in and out of the news in terms of its' financial status. There are questions about France, questions about other countries. Germany is struggling along with very little growth, even though it is seen as an economic provider and dynamo, at a level of growth which is so anemic there are questions raised as to whether and how much it can do to help the European situation. But even aside from the potentially catastrophic debt bomb that continues to tick away, if we fail to get spending under control in the short term, our economy will remain in the doldrums because of this cloud of economic uncertainty it creates among businesses, investors, and consumers-- created by our inability to grasp the fiscal plight of our excessive and reckless spending. The fact is that we are not going to be able to get our economy out of the rut we have been in unless we tackle the Federal Government's spending addiction. Washington's reckless spending and failure to produce even a budget plan over the last 4 years undermines confidence in our economic prospects and causes investors, businesses, and consumers to sit on the sidelines rather than take risks with their money. As my colleagues know very well, our spending addiction in Washington has at long last led us to the point where we now face the process of record deficits as far as the eye can see into the future, a spiraling Federal debt that is now nearly $16.5 trillion, and a possible further downgrading of the credit rating of the United States. Were interest rates not being held at historically, artificially low levels by the Fed we might already be facing our day of reckoning. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, even a 1 percentage point increase in interest rates would add $1.3 trillion to our debt over a period of 10 years. If borrowing costs return to their 20-year average, which certainly they will at some point, deficits over the next 10 years will increase by $4.9 trillion. If interest rates were to rise to the level of the 1980s, the total U.S. debt in 2021 would be $5.3 trillion greater. That is $5.3 trillion in new debt that would occur without any changes in spending or taxes. Interest rates would simply drive our debt out of control. Make no mistake that this is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. The President campaigned on the false narrative that taking more from the top earners would alleviate the economic burdens we face. As a result of winning the election, he was able to get higher taxes on Americans at the higher end of the income scale. But no one is fooled and math does not lie. Increasing taxes on higher income earners is not going to make much of a dent in our $1 trillion deficits. The fact is, even if the President had received all of the revenue from the expiration of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in tax rates, Federal revenue would have come in at this historical average of just over 18 percent of GDP, but spending continues to rise, on average, 23 percent of GDP over the same period of time--more than 2 points ahead of its historical average. Thus, the problem: the fact that we are spending more than we can afford. We are spending more than we receive. Actions speak louder than words. President Obama may talk about the need to rein in spending--although lately he has even rejected that-- but his administration refuses to act. Instead, the President started off his second term doubling down on--what? The need for more taxes. Are not the American people being taxed to death? It is not just the Federal income tax, it is the State tax added to that, it is the sales tax, it is the excise tax, it is the car tax, it is the alcohol tax--it is any number of things that add up to a burden of taxation on the American people that is severely hampering our ability to grow and our economy to provide the necessary employment and the necessary jobs for people so desperately in need of and looking for that work. While the President has not truly recognized that spending is the problem, the business community has. A recent survey of chief executives said they are considerably less optimistic about the short- term growth process for their companies than they were just a year ago. The reason is uncertainty. The business community does not have confidence in the growth prospects for our country because there is little confidence that Washington can get its act together and deal with the spending crisis that is dragging down this economy. In an atmosphere of uncertainty, investors, businesses, and consumers proceed with caution. They hold back in making significant investments or expenditures. Also, they don't hire people, and they will not until they get more clarity about the future and our ability to address our problems. As I traveled across Indiana and talked to business owners' large, small, and in between, as well as farmers, to owners of restaurants, to CEOs of major companies, they all said the same thing. They all said the lack of certainty and the prospects for the future--unless we get control of our spending--are such that they have no choice but to just sit on their hands and hold back. The big credit agencies are saying the same thing. They know that without significant spending reform and spending cuts the United States will be unable to pay its bills at some point. Refusing to make the tough choices now just hastens the day of reckoning when markets decide the United States has become a bad credit risk. Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch Ratings all have a negative outlook on the United States' prospects and are threatening a further downgrade of our credit rating unless we get our fiscal house in order. Other downgrades would follow in short order: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as many State governments. As a result, this would irreparably damage many State and local pension funds. They are all at risk. It is a nightmare scenario that is not far away from happening if we don't start getting a handle on our reckless, runaway spending. We need to get a handle on it now not later. There is no more reason for excuses. We have done all we can on the revenue side. The President got what he wanted. He got his taxes, but now is the time when we need to focus on the real problem, which is runaway spending. Big spending and small, everything from the need to reform our mandatory entitlement spending to the smaller, duplicative, wasteful, yet important, spending that Washington specializes in and is not necessary particularly at a time of austerity. I intend to get into some more detail about spending reforms in future speeches, but the overall point is undeniable: Unless we get our spending under control, we are going to continue to stagger forward with a weak economy, high unemployment, and draw ever closer to the day when our investors and creditors lose faith in our ability to pay our debts. The next time I come to the floor--and I am not sure when since it depends on what our schedule might be--I want to talk not about what Dan Coats is saying, not what the Senator from Indiana is saying; I want to talk about what others are saying. I want to hear from those who are not saying it from a political perspective or trying to reflect their party's position but from those who spend their time analyzing our current situation. I want to hear from those who understand the map of where we are and what the implications and consequences are for our country. I don't just want to hear statements by those of us here but statements made by others and the importance and need for us to address this most serious of problems and challenges. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, earlier this week, through the eyes of the Nation watched the inauguration ceremony here in Washington. A week before that, back in Indiana, I was present for the celebration of the inauguration of Indiana's 50th Governor, former Congressman Mike Pence, who is taking over after 8 years of leadership under our former Governor, Mitch Daniels. So back-to-back weekends had two special events. Inauguration ceremonies are a time for reflection on what has happened in the past and a time for new vision on how we ought to go forward with the future. It is also a time for new opportunity. An opportunity for the kind of change necessary to address the problems and challenges we face. As I participated in the inauguration events for Governor Pence in Indianapolis just two weekends ago, I couldn't help but think of the remarkable record of achievement and the bold reforms that our former Governor, Mitch Daniels, delivered to the Hoosier State and the lessons they may offer to Washington. In 2005, Indiana faced a several-hundred-million-dollar deficit. This pales by comparison to the deficit we face here; but, nevertheless, for a State of our size it is a significant amount. Although it is constitutionally mandated in Indiana, we had not balanced our budget for 7 years. Governor Daniels and his team had a vision and the political courage to make much needed changes, and the people of Indiana supported and responded. While other States increased spending and raised taxes, Indiana reduced spending, cut taxes, and paid down our debts. Governor Daniels, with the help of the legislature and with the support of the people of Indiana, slowed down the rate of spending. The State's expenditures have grown at less than one-quarter the rate of the previous decade. We also reduced the size of State government. Indiana has the fewest State employees per capita in the country. We paid down the previous debt by 43 percent, and we currently sit with a budget surplus and a rebate program which will give money collected in taxes back to the taxpayer because of our state's efficiency and effectiveness in terms of running our government. Indiana, as a result of this, has received its first AAA credit rating. This means when we do need to borrow or sell bonds to do certain infrastructure or meet other needs, we can receive low interest rates because of our superb AAA rating. All this has transformed Indiana's balance sheet and made our State one of the most attractive places to live, raise a family, and do business in the Midwest, if not in the Nation. The story of Indiana and how it got hold of its fiscal issues has been written up in national journals and newspapers and documentaries and others. It is a remarkable story. It is not unique because we see these things happening in other States around the country led not only by Republican Governors but Democrat Governors. These are the kinds of decisions that have to be made and are being made to restore state and local governments. And it has created a much brighter future for the citizens of those States. Governor Daniels has often said, ``You'd be amazed by how much government you'll never miss.'' The results of his administration back that up. You can go around Indiana, as I have, and talk to people from big cities to small, rural to urban and everything in between and ask them how we have moved from deficit to surplus in our state. You can ask if they still believe our state performs the necessary functions of government and you can ask Hoosiers what has been cut that you think should have stayed. Frankly, no one could come up with an answer that says: We have had disastrous consequences from these decisions. The vast majority say that things are working pretty well. In fact, I can get my license renewed through a total revamp of our licensing system in just a few minutes over the Internet or just a few minutes at the DMV. Governor Daniels' measure for that was in and out in less than 7 minutes. For those of us who have spent hours and hours committing half a day or more to getting our license renewed, this is a remarkable achievement. The use of technology, privatization, and the use of more efficient government demands that our civil servants do more with less and this has proven to be effective. While the fiscal situation we faced in Indiana is not totally analogous to what we face here, the principles are the same, and there still are many similarities. As Washington seeks answers at the start of this new session of Congress on how we move forward and address our extremely serious debt situation and get our fiscal house back in order so that we too can retain a AAA rating and so we too can provide the opportunity for growth and opportunity not just for the middle class but for all Americans in the future, maybe there are some lessons to be learned from Indiana. The spend less, borrow less, and tax less Hoosier model has resulted in balanced budgets, job creation, and a AAA credit rating. In contrast, the spend more, borrow more, and tax more approach in Washington during these last several years has resulted in fewer jobs, higher debt, and a threatened downgrade from credit agencies. So as we reflect back on the last 4 years of this current administration, it is clear to me we must take a different course in the second term of this administration. Whether lawmakers want to admit it, the crux of our problem is this: Washington has promised Americans far too much and committed well beyond our means. Federal spending and borrowing cannot continue at this current pace without dire consequences. Whether one is reading or listening to a liberal, conservative or a nonpartisan economist or an analyst, there is a consensus that sustaining our current rate or continuing our rate of borrowing and spending simply is not feasible and the consequences will be dire if we do not address it. As we seek to address these issues, my suggestion for Washington is to take a look at the Hoosier model. It is tested, it is proven, and it is working. We need to go big and bold. We need to have the political courage to look beyond the short-term political consequences, as we perceive them, to the long-term benefit from sound policies--which, interestingly enough, translate into good politics. Strengthening the economy and getting our country on a track to brighter and more prosperous times should be our priority. We have proven in Indiana that good policy, no matter how politically difficult it might seem at the time to achieve, does translate into good politics. But much more important than the politics, good policy can translate into strengthening our economy, improving the lives of Americans, and providing opportunity for future generations. It is time we learn that lesson in Washington that our State of Indiana and many States across the country, as well as other communities, are learning. It is time we exhibit the political courage to stand and do what I think just about everyone in this body understands; that is, to get a hold of runaway spending and borrowing that is putting us in a very deep fiscal hole and will have significant, dire consequences not only on future generations but even our current generation. The time is now. As I said from this spot yesterday, 2013 is the decisive year. In 2014, we will be back into an election year, and that tired old belief that we cannot make these kinds of changes with the election looming will surface again. If we don't act now, more people will say that we need to wait until after the next election. It will push us into 2015. Many who have looked at our situation fiscally and analyzed it from a nonpartisan, nonideological basis have said 2015 is too late. This is the time when we need to summon our courage, summon our political will, and do what is right for the American people. We cannot continue to bump along at less than 2 percent growth. We cannot continue to keep more than 8 percent or nearly 8 percent of our people unemployed; and, obviously, that number is much higher when we count those who are no longer looking for work who have given up. We cannot continue to keep America on the edge of uncertainty in terms of what our fiscal future will look like. Let us summon that courage to go forward. Let us use examples from those States, the support of those Governors and the support they have received from people across those States. Let us summon the courage to do what we need to do. I want to continue talking about how we need to address this with a ``go big, go bold'' type of approach. Everyone says and concludes that if we can put that package together to address our long-term ills over a period of time and bring us back to balance and stability, we will see a revival of the economy of this country and we will see great hope for the American people going forward. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the minority leader, and I think he essentially gets to the point all of us, in this first week for the 113th Congress, need to be focused on and need to address. This is our first workweek back after the inauguration festivities of yesterday, and I think it is an appropriate time for the Members of this body to discuss the challenges that lay before us over the next 2 years. The most critical and, in my opinion, the most pressing of these challenges is one we have been dealing with for the past 2 years and is now of even more critical importance, and that is the out-of-control government spending that weakens the health of our economy, threatens the security of our country, and jeopardizes opportunities for future generations. When I arrived here 2 years ago, it was clear the American people were concerned about out-of-control Federal spending. At the beginning of the President's term 4 years ago, the debt limit stood at $10.626 trillion plus. In the 4 years of that term, it has risen to over $16.400 trillion--nearly a $6 trillion increase. It is unprecedented in the history of our country to have such out- of-control spending. It has resulted in our borrowing a very substantial amount of each year's budget, which is not healthy whether you are a family or you are a business or you are a State government or you are the Federal Government. The chickens will come home to roost if we continue to do that. Each American's share of our national debt now is well over $50,000. That means every new baby born in this country instantly owes the government more than $50,000. We have had 4 straight years of trillion-dollar deficits without a budget in this body. The minority leader just talked about that. Hopefully, we will finally have a budget to work off of and a budget for which we can look at what the priorities are and make tough decisions about how we spend taxpayers' money. We currently spend over $40,000 a second. These are not partisan numbers, and this should not be a partisan issue. These are the facts. As our former Governor in Indiana, Mitch Daniels, said: Just do the arithmetic. This is not a deep philosophical or ideological issue. It is a matter of basic math. With financial problems as great as these, it is my hope as we return now to this 113th Congress we will be able to address this fiscal crisis. It is the same hope I had 2 years ago when I joined the 112th Congress. As we know, we went through a series of efforts to begin to address this problem. Many of those were on a bipartisan basis--we had the Gang of 6 and then we had the supercommittee of 12. These were bipartisan efforts. Many of us worked with our colleagues across the aisle to try to put a grand bargain together. Of course, the President had his own commission led by Mr. Bowles and former Senator Simpson. He rejected that. The Simpson Bowles proposal would have been a good blueprint upon which to begin our discussions. I will be talking some more about that and the disappointment--the extreme disappointment--of Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson in terms of the inability of this body to address what has been predicted as the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation's history. We went through this whole process of the fiscal cliff. We, unfortunately, had to pick the lesser of two evils in order to protect nearly 99 percent of taxpayers from drastic tax increases, starting with the lowest to the highest taxpayer. The fiscal cliff deal may have allowed the President to fulfill his campaign promise to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires, but it did little or nothing to address excessive Federal spending. So the debate now shifts. The President got his taxes. With revenue off the table, the debate shifts to where it needs to be and should have been in the first place; that is, addressing spending reductions. Just last week Fitch Ratings warned that America's AAA credit rating is at risk if the Congress and the President increase the debt limit but fail to enact a ``credible medium-term deficit reduction plan.'' We can expect to see more headlines like this if we do not come together and take action to deal with our country's debt obligations. In the coming days and weeks I will be speaking in this Chamber and outlining what I believe are rational steps we need to take to get our fiscal house in order. The easy thing to do, and the way Congress has operated over these past 2 years, is to look at our fiscal situation and say: Well, we have more time; or we can deal with this after the next election. While I thought that was exactly the wrong tactic to take, that is what happened. There were a series of efforts, but each one ended up so-called kicking the can down the road or postponing the day of decision. This is the day of decision. This is the hour of decision. This is the time when we have to step up now and address our out-of-control spending. We have had that next election. The President has been reelected for 4 years. Members have been reelected. We have this challenge now in front of us. Continuing with the status quo, governing by a crisis, and failing to address our spending problem must be unacceptable. Mr. President, 2013 is the year. In 2014 we are back in another election. We all know the precious 6 to 9 to 12 months that lay before us is the time--postelection, with the President's reelection and new Members here--this is the time we have to step up and address our debt and deficit problem. If we do not do so now, most experts who look at this, whether they are liberal or conservative, nonpartisan or partisan, ideological or nonideological, have virtually all come to the conclusion that unless we address this now in 2013, with an election year in 2014, 2015 will be too late. We have seen what is happening in Europe. We see what is happening in Japan. We see what is happening around the world--a world hungry for America to lead, to address its problem, not by pushing it down the road, not through avoiding tough decisions, but addressing the real issue before us that impacts the future of this country and the future of generations to come. So now is the time, now is the hour of decision that we have to take to go forward and address this problem. As I said, I will be using this platform and others as a way to address what I believe we need to go forward with, not only looking at the larger picture but also looking at how this government spends way beyond its means, spends money that it does not have, wastes money through bureaucracy and waste and failed efforts, tries to do more than it should or could or is able, and I want to document some of those--everything from the macro to the micro, from the absurd to the bureaucratic to the necessary tough decisions, particularly in regard to our entitlements that have to be addressed in order to preserve and save those programs for not only current beneficiaries but for future beneficiaries. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to begin this process, and I think each of us must dedicate ourselves to the challenge that lies before us. That challenge is dealing with our out-of-control fiscal situation, that if not controlled will bring this country down and continue this economic malaise that we are currently in. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President I wish to thank my friend, my long-time friend whom I hate to see leave this body, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, for his remarks. I didn't have the opportunity to speak after he gave his farewell remarks. I do wish to say, before I get into the reason I came down here--I am happy to see him here so I can say this--it has been a joy to serve with him over the years. I am in my second life in the Senate, and during my first life we served together on the Armed Services Committee. We did a number of initiatives together on which I was proud to be associated with him, that I believe strengthened our national economy and our security team around the world. We worked on school vouchers for DC and a number of other initiatives affecting the future of our military and other issues that were of importance to us. Most important, from my standpoint, we worked together to bring values that each of us cherish based on our faith. Joe is of the Jewish faith, and I am of the Christian faith. We discovered on a trip to Iraq, just after Desert Storm, that we, in talking to each other, shared our respective faiths and how it affected our lives, how it affected our families, and how it helped us form decisions we make. Of course, coming from two different parties, we didn't find agreement on everything, but we found agreement on a number of things, particularly those things where we shared common values, where our faith shared common values and where individually we shared those values. Under the direction of a rabbi from Chicago we cochaired the Center for Jewish and Christian Values, bringing together Jews and Christians to talk about what they had in common and what values we could work together on for the betterment of our country and for the betterment of our society. Too often we bring groups together of different persuasions to discuss, argue, and debate the differences. This was different because we brought these groups together, distinguished leaders from both sides, prominent leaders from both sides, to set aside those differences and work to find those values we had in common. It was a joy to participate in that with Senator Lieberman and to cochair that. We have remained friends. His contributions to our country, not just representing a State but representing America around the world, will long be remembered and will have great impact and effect. We are losing a real talent, and we are losing a real gentleman. We are losing someone who is an example of how he conducts himself and is an example for all of us as to how we ought to conduct ourselves, and we don't always do that. But Joe Lieberman has left a lasting impression on me--and I know a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and he will be sorely missed. One thing I am happy about is that we will continue a lifelong friendship, and I am looking forward to many more opportunities for Senator Lieberman to work on matters of interest but will enjoy a continued sharing of the commonalities of our Judeo-Christian faiths. Kent Conrad

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. All right. I thank the Chair. I saw some angst on the face of the Chair, and I thought my time was up. Let me just say this to my colleagues. Many of us who watched the President's press conference--no, it wasn't a press conference; the President's speech--felt we were seeing a rerun of something that took place during the campaign. We have all been watching a lot of football, and for Republicans to sit and listen and watch that, it reminded me of taunting those people on the other team. It stops you cold. It stands over you and taunts. It got so bad that now the NFL has made it a penalty and they throw the flag. It is not something we would expect out of the leader of this free Nation. It is not statesmanship. It is not leadership. It is in your face. It was dismissive, it was insulting, it was belittling, and in the end it was sad. Now, the natural reaction is to get angry and push back and get revenge. But that is not where we are, and that is not where we need to be. We need to set this aside. It is like the coach tapping us on the shoulder pad and saying: What was done speaks for itself; don't stoop to that level. So we need to set that aside now and go forward in the interest of the future of this country, in the interest of America and the families and people we represent in our States, and look at this very carefully. I think every one of us is going to say we haven't begun to address the spending, we haven't begun to address what we need to do, and so that has to be our charge in 2013--relentlessly. And I would say, Mr. President, I think people on the other side of the aisle were probably embarrassed also by that speech. It was a campaign speech, and the campaigns are over. The President doesn't need to run for office anymore. It is time to lead. So let's all get together. We have been working together----

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I came to the floor before I heard the announcement that apparently we are closing in, thankfully, on something which I don't have all the details of as yet. So I can't simply say hooray, this is exactly what we ought to do. I think neither side is going to be able to say this is what we wanted to do. But in recognition of the fact that we are careening now--hours are ticking--hours away from a devastating impact on Americans all across the country, every taxpayer--Senator Lieberman announced the statistics relative to the impact on the average family in his State, and the same is true for Indiana and for all 50 States, to impose the massive tax increases which will occur on every taxpayer at midnight tonight, without addressing that, it is just simply unacceptable. It is hard for a lot of us to swallow how little we did in addressing the larger fiscal issue in this country in order to get past this imposed deadline on something I did not vote for and did not support because I could see it coming to this end, and it was absolutely the wrong way to legislate and the wrong way to govern--pushing us toward this fiscal cliff, laying that dark cloud of uncertainty over every business in America, every household in America. Everyone who had any interest in investing or was trying to plan for the future kept saying: I can't make a decision. I can't make plans. I don't know what you are going to do. Are we going over the cliff? Are my taxes going to rise? Are regulations going to increase? What is the future? And if the future remains uncertain, I can't plan ahead. If it is bad certainty, I can work around it. I might not like it, but I can make the adjustments necessary. So, as a result, we have a stagnant economy as a result of all this. I am hoping that when we learn the details of what we have finally arrived at, which we will be learning very shortly, I am hoping it is something we can swallow hard and accept, knowing--knowing--this fiscal cliff is nothing compared to the real fiscal cliff. The real fiscal cliff is the continued excessive borrowing and spending of over $1 trillion a year that is driving this country into a serious fiscal situation for the future. And it is not just something our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for years down the line. It is something we are all paying for now. It is something that is keeping people from getting back to work, keeping companies from expanding. We have an obligation to our generation and all future generations to address what I believe every American who is paying any attention whatsoever understands--and certainly everyone in this body and in our corresponding House down the hall understands, whether they are a Republican, a Democrat, liberal, or conservative--is just simple math. It is not even algebra or calculus. It is third grade math. You cannot raise $2.2 trillion a year and spend $3.5 trillion or $3.4 trillion. Literally, we have now added approaching $6 trillion in just the last 4 years, and it is unsustainable. That is going to hurt everybody, and it is hurting our economy right now. That is the real cliff. That is the cliff we have to continue to address. That is the cliff we were hoping to address in the leverage of this situation, but we are coming up very, very short. Mr. President, I didn't realize we were under a time limitation. Are we under a time limitation?

Mr. COATS. I want to say this: To make laughter out of this, to ridicule it--it addresses all of us because I have been working with Senators across the aisle and they have been working with us. We all take this very, very seriously. This is not a joke. This is not something to make fun of. This is not something to politicize. This is something where we should rise above politics and do what is right for the future of America even though it is difficult. This is not doing what many of us would like to do, but we have been working together, Democrats and Republicans, and I can name dozens of Democrats who think this is a serious matter and who have been working hard for the last 2 years to try to address it, as frustrated as we are on this side. So let's understand this is not a game. This is real. Let's work together to do what we can do and then continue to address the real issues as we go forward in 2013. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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