Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Let me just say that we simply are allowing 3 months for the Congress of the United States--representatives of taxpayers' dollars--to assess, document, and justify additional expenditures that go beyond emergency needs. That is what this is all about.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not believe there is anyone in this Chamber who does not understand the devastating impact of Sandy on the Northeast and the pain and the suffering that has come from that. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who does not understand this is an emergency supplemental appropriation that is needed now to address this pain and suffering and help rebuild and help provide the relief necessary to these people and businesses and others in the Northeast. We want to do that. But the bill before us presented by the Democrats--the bill offered by the other side throws out $60-plus billion to address not just immediate needs but also future needs for future storms and even unrelated issues not related to Sandy. The Coats alternative, which I hope to gain support for, documents what is needed, takes that documentation, provided by FEMA, SBA, all the agencies involved, and more than generously compensates for what is needed between now and the end of March.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I have 15 seconds just to respond to my colleague?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to use those 2 minutes, if I could, to sum up. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his support throughout this whole process. He has been instrumental in helping us work through this to find what we believe is a reasonable way to move forward and provide that immediate emergency help that is so badly needed up in the Northeast. Let me just give one example of how we came to these numbers. We do provide, through the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations, $32 million for repairs of Amtrak's infrastructure, dewatering of tunnels, electrical systems, overhead wires. These are immediate needs, and we want to provide funding for them. There is funding for highway emergency relief directly related to Sandy. We fund for that. We fund for public transportation infrastructure, immediate needs between now and March. Again, we are not saying there might not be need for more funding after this, but we will at least have had the opportunity to vet that and look to ensure that the money is correctly spent. What we didn't do under that appropriations was $30 million of damages that come under the FAA existing budget, the funding for highway projects not related to Sandy that are in the Democratic bill and mitigation projects unrelated to Sandy. Again, we are not against mitigation, but we are saying let us focus on Sandy. Let us get the emergency help to those who need it now. Let us get it there in an ample amount of time and money for them. Then let us take up, through the regular process and we carefully examine how we spend the taxpayers' money, providing those needed funds for the real emergency but not using this as a bill to lard up with all kinds of excessive spending that isn't needed for this particular emergency. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3391.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am cognizant of the fact that we will have a series of votes beginning in just 15 minutes, and so even though the unanimous consent request on this amendment is for 30 minutes equally divided, I am going to try to judiciously use this time between myself and Senator Alexander to explain why we are offering this amendment, and hopefully our colleagues will be persuaded to support us when we vote on this probably tomorrow. We are all, of course, sensitive to the pain and damage inflicted by Mother Nature in the Northeast. In fact, some of the Northeast is getting some more of that pain with a storm up there today. No State or region in our country should be left to fend for itself after a storm as devastating as Hurricane Sandy. It is important to understand that many things have overwhelmed the ability of the States and local communities to deal with some of the effects of this, and that is why the Sandy emergency supplemental is before us attached to H.R. 1 and why we will be voting on that, I assume, tomorrow. There are two versions before us; one is the Senate Democrats' emergency supplemental proposal. That totals $60.4 billion. It includes nearly $13 billion in mitigation funding. That goes for the next storm, not this storm. There is $3.46 billion for Army Corps of Engineers, $500 million of which is projects from previous disasters; $3 billion to repair or replace Federal assets that do not fall into the category of emergency need. There is $56 million for tsunami cleanup on the west coast, which, of course, does not relate to Sandy. There is a lot of new authorizing language for reform of disaster relief programs, which I would support through the regular process. But without having gone through the authorizing committee, I don't think that is a good idea. Our proposed alternative provides $23.8 billion in funding for the next 3 months. We are not saying this is the be-all and end-all of what Congress will ultimately fund to meet the needs of those who have been impacted by Sandy. We are simply saying that before rushing to a number, which has not been fully scrubbed, fully looked at, plans haven't been fully developed yet--and that is understandable--we think it most important we provide emergency funding for those in immediate need over the next 3 months. We have carefully worked with FEMA Director Fugate and we have worked with Secretary Donovan at HUD. We have worked through the Appropriations Committee to identify those specific needs that get to the emergency situations under which this bill is titled. It provides funding for States to allow them to begin to rebuild but also leaves us time to review what additional funds might be needed. So rather than throwing out a big number and simply saying let us see what comes in under that number, let us look at the most immediate needs that have to be funded now and provide a sufficient amount of funds in order to do that. In fact, the amount we are providing would extend, in terms of outlays, far beyond March 27, but we want those mayors and we want those Governors to be able to begin the planning process of looking how they would go forward. We also want, in respect to our careful need, to carefully look at how we extend taxpayer dollars. We want to allow this 3-month period of time for which the relevant committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives can look at these plans, can document the request, can examine the priorities that might be needed and then put a sensible plan in place that hopefully will be an efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, we have struck from the Democratic proposal all moneys that would go to mitigation funding, not saying mitigation funding isn't necessary but simply saying it doesn't meet the emergency need this first 3-month proposal addresses. This will give States time to begin to rebuild but also allow us time to review what additional funds are needed for that rebuilding. We don't allow authorizing language because we don't believe in authorizing something on an emergency appropriations bill that ought to go through the authorizing committee. We focus specifically on Sandy-related needs. There are a number of other needs, as I have just addressed, that are perhaps legitimate, that ought to come through the regular process. With that, let me turn to my colleague from Tennessee who has been working with me. I would say our Appropriations Committee, our Republican staff, has gone through this very carefully and tried to identify how we can get money for the essential needs to those people, to those communities that need them now. We want to be responsible in terms of spending taxpayer dollars by having a period of time in which we can look at the plans for the future and see what additional funds might be needed. With that, I yield for the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time is still available before the call up of the vote on the FISA legislation?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1, for the purpose of calling up and debating the Coats amendment; that following the remarks of Senator Coats Senator Alexander be recognized; the Senate resume consideration of the FISA bill, H.R. 5949; and that all provisions of the previous orders remain in effect.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr President, I have not yet filed, but I intend to shortly, an alternative amendment to the emergency supplemental which is on the Senate floor and in the process of being debated. I would like to explain what it is that I am going to file and what it does and explain the rationale behind it.

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. That is correct.

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

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator, but I would like to finish my remarks, if I could. I know we all have time commitments.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the concept behind this, of course, is to be as careful as we can with the taxpayers' money and make sure that each dollar spent is spent on something that has been thoroughly examined, looked at, vetted, scrubbed, and determined to be necessary going forward. We have to determine the share, the cost share for the State and local communities; what that percentage ought to be that comes from the State and the local communities as opposed to the Federal Government. We have to determine how to best go forward with the best project that can, hopefully, prevent future damage should a second storm or subsequent storm occur. We have to look at a whole number of factors and make judgments. That is what we are elected to do. When the taxpayers send their money into the Federal Government, they don't want us to just throw up a number and throw some wish list out and throw out money at unsubstantiated and unscrubbed projects that are proposed. So I am not suggesting that everything in the proposal, the $60.4 billion, is not necessary. I am simply saying give us some time, at least these 3 months through March 27, to have our committees and have the experts look at these proposals and make sure it is substantiated. So we remove the unsubstantiated, the mitigated, the non-Sandy related. We have removed all that from this program, and that is how we arrived at this number. Now, I could go through a number of examples--I don't think I need to do that at this particular point in time. When we look at the various categories this falls into, sometimes we matched exactly what it was in the administration's bill, saying this is an accurate number. Flood insurance, for instance, we require people living in flood zones to buy flood insurance. They buy the flood insurance, and they are looking for their check. If the estimate has been made, and it has been made actuarially and through the procedures of FEMA and all those evaluating the cost, and the decision is made and the number is determined and certified, then a check is written and those people can move on to their lives. That is an immediate need. We can't tell people to pay their premiums and we will somehow find a way to get their checks to them a year from now. This is an immediate need. In that regard, we have matched their request made by the Flood Insurance Program to provide the borrowing authority so that they can cut those checks. Whether it is Christmas or the middle of the year, those people need to get their lives back together and we want to get that money to them. So as you go through the list here and the categories, as you compare what we have provided and what was provided in the larger bill, you find congruence in a number of areas, but a number of other areas, which I have generalized in terms of mitigation, in terms of community development block grants, all these take time to come to fruition, to be put together. The plans need to be vetted and approved. They are not necessary to provide the necessary immediate need and aid that is for the people who are suffering from the consequences of this storm. If we go through all that and scrub it, we arrive at a considerably lower number. But I want it said that this number, while higher than some would like and lower than others would like, is a carefully thought-through, reasonable number to take care of needs for now, through this Christmas season and all the way to March 27. This Congress will then revisit the matter and see what else is needed. But during that time, we will be able to also carefully work through the estimates, substantiate those estimates, certify that. Then, obviously, I think those proposing will have a much better foundation to stand on in terms of what they are requesting, and those of us who are trying to be very careful with the taxpayers' dollars will be able to assert or state why we think this may not be necessary at this time or perhaps doesn't fall in the category of being related to Sandy. We all know when some emergency supplemental comes to the Halls of Congress, a lot of people reach in their pocket, pull out their wish list, waiting for the next train that has to be something we will move through quickly, has to be something signed by the President because it is designated as an emergency. They throw on their wish list of unresolved, unfunded projects that perhaps are legitimate, perhaps maybe just earmarks or something that needs a train to hook onto in order to get passed. That is what we want to try to avoid. As I said, I will be filing this amendment, which hopefully will be seen as an alternative to give Members a choice in terms of how best to move forward in dealing with this legitimate supplemental emergency provision. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. The Senator from Vermont is correct. I don't intend to take any action on this now. I know there are events planned tonight. We are in the middle of mourning for our lost colleague as well. But I simply wanted to explain for the record what it is that we are attempting to do. I think all of us are sensitive to the pain and the damage incurred by those in the Northeast due to the catastrophic, clearly catastrophic record proportion hurricane that hit that sector of our country just weeks ago. Clearly, that is something that falls in the category of an emergency. It goes beyond the ability of State and local jurisdictions to address with their own resources. They will participate in the recovery, and they have. It is remarkable, in this country virtually no State, no Senator, can stand and simply say, well, we haven't been touched and not understand the need for the response that comes from disasters, whether they be tornadoes like occurred in my State of Indiana just this past spring--we needed emergency help and response and received that--or whether it is flooding that has occurred throughout the Midwest and in other parts of the country that has caused a tremendous amount of damage. There have been terrorist attacks such as 9/11, Oklahoma City. In this case, hurricanes, and we have had a number of those. Katrina stands in our mind, Irene, and on and on it goes with Sandy being the latest. This one was truly of a monumental proportion and created a lot of damage. Therefore, a Federal response is needed and necessary if we are going to begin to have an adequate recovery, get people back to work and back in their homes, businesses up and growing again and working. The bill that is currently on the Senate floor for us attempts to do that. Some of us were somewhat staggered by the initial number, $60.4 billion. That may not be enough; that may be too much. But in the short amount of time that we have had to try to put all the estimates together in terms of what might be needed, what we as Senate Appropriations Republicans have attempted to do is to separate that from what we believe is immediately needed--immediate being from the time of the storm through March 27--to attend to those initial responses that need to take place. There were a whole raft of things that run the gamut from debris cleanup to repairing damaged and flooded facilities, destroyed homes, public facilities, and so forth. But we need to try to go through and separate the immediate and make sure that measure of support as quickly and as expeditiously as possible is brought to the area to address the problem and distinguish them from those longer term projects and interests that have been proposed. When our committee met, it was, I think, up to 10 Senators from the affected States testifying. We heard a number of suggestions about the number of things that ought to be incorporated into this legislation. Mitigation was one major issue. Mitigation simply is preparing for the next storm so we can mitigate or lessen the damage that occurred from the storm that we just incurred. But mitigation is a long-term project. It is not something that can be immediately entered into. Interestingly enough, on the proposals that were presented before the committee, many were contradictory. Some thought that burying wires underground would prevent, obviously, tree limbs from taking them down and losing power on above-ground wiring. In a city like Manhattan, Boston, or a major metropolitan area or in any city, it is an enormously expensive project. While that seemed initially to meet some success, then one of the experts who was testifying said, well, wait a minute. The flooding that occurs with this would go in and would corrode the piping and corrode a lot of the systems and the switches, and that might not be the best thing to do. I don't know whether that is better to do or not better to do, but it is certainly something that needs to be examined carefully and vetted before we commit to that type of project. Others said we should rebuild the sand dunes and sand islands offshore to provide barriers. There was the piece, I think it was in the New York Times, that basically said this has shown some real promise in terms of protecting areas by having sand barriers off coast. Other experts came in and said, well, yes, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't work, and you need to be careful how and where you build these. It is not the panacea, it is not the be-all and end-all of how you prevent this type of damage, but it clearly is something that we ought to look at, clearly something we ought to examine. But making a decision now in the weeks' aftermath of the storm, just days from adjournment, and saying this is why we need $13 billion toward mitigation projects--without vetting those projects, without examining those, having experts look at it and tell us what they think would work, how much it would cost, setting the priorities of what ought to be first, what ought to be done and what, perhaps, might not work and be postponed--all of that requires a process. If we are going to be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars at a time of this fiscal crisis, and particularly now, it seems to me the most logical and responsible way to move forward is to identify the immediate needs and provide the immediate funding to address those needs. Secondly, on those needs that are longer term, go through the process. That is why we have committees. That is why we have procedures in place, to identify how best to move forward and spend the taxpayer dollars in a useful way that doesn't turn out to be a waste of money and deny us the opportunities to do the mitigation or other repairs that may be needed. The additional funding, of course, this is a short-term proposal. It goes through March 27. It addresses those needs that fall into that category that meet the criteria of what we set out when we told our staff on the Appropriations Committee to go through and scrub the bill that was put before us and separate out that which was needed now from that which could be done later. That criteria excluded funding for projects not related to Sandy. There is the long list of requests out there for previous disasters. Mitigation was for future disasters that may or may not come. On mitigation, we said let's set that aside for later deliberation. On nonrelated issues, such as cleaning up the tsunami debris on the west coast, those expenditures put in this $60.4 billion proposal by the administration and brought to this Senate floor, if it is not related directly to this storm, let's set those aside for the procedures that were being dealt with before Sandy occurred or put those procedures in place to deal with it afterward. So unrelated items and unsubstantiated items, those are where all the facts weren't in, where these were estimates that had not been certified and not substantiated in a way that I think puts us in a position to make the correct decisions in terms of going forward. So under that criteria, we came up with a proposal that is a little bit of a work in progress, but totals around $24 billion. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am joining my colleagues in rising today to pay honor and respect to the service of Jon Kyl, a tribute to his passion for public service and his State of Arizona and his country in this Congress for 26 years. I echo all the sentiments and all the words that have been said by our colleagues. There are not enough adjectives to adequately describe the extraordinary service Jon has provided to this country. I have had the pleasure of serving alongside him in the House of Representatives, in the Senate--two times, as some know. I served before and then was out for 12 years and then came back. In my many years of service here, it is hard to think of a person who has been more influential and been more of someone I wanted to emulate and to learn from and to look at as a wise counsel than Jon Kyl. He has been described as an influential member of the Judiciary and Finance Committees. Yes, he has been an outspoken leader on issues of very significant importance to this country--significant issues including the landmark Crime Victims Rights Act, progrowth tax policies that we have been debating here, patient-centered health care reform, and antiterrorism laws, nuclear proliferation, safeguarding our nuclear stockpile. On and on it could go. Jon recently called me to his office and said, you know, there are 13 separate things here that have been the highest priority for me. Now not many Senators will tell you they have got 13 high-priority issues they not only are interested in but have drilled down in a unique, in- depth understanding of those particular issues. Jon said: One thing I want to accomplish before I leave is to make sure someone will pick up the ball and take the baton and carry on those issues after I leave. That is an extraordinary statement. First of all, the breadth and the depth of his engagement and his knowledge, which I do not think any one person here--it would take many--could begin to duplicate, but also the leadership that he has provided on issues of significant importance to the future of this country. Jon was listed as one of the world's 100 most influential people--well-deserved recognition. In Washington, he has been labeled as one of the 25 hardest working lawmakers. I cannot think of anybody who stands higher in that list than Jon Kyl. My mental image of Jon Kyl is Jon striding through the Halls of Congress literally leaning into the wind. It is as if there is a 60-mile gale coming in his face, and Jon is leaning into it with determination. I see his staff nodding their heads here. It has got to be hard to stay up with Jon when he has his mind on something and he is determined to get something done. He is leaning in like a ship into a gale, moving forward to try to accomplish his mission. We all say when someone leaves here, we are losing someone whom maybe we cannot replace. That may or may not be true. In my first iteration, when I gave my farewell speech, I think there were probably a lot of people who said: We can find a substitute for Coats; that will not be too hard. It is true. Finding a replacement for Jon Kyl is a tall task. It is going to be very hard to find someone who has the passion for this, his service, the intelligence and the knowledge of the issues he engages in, the leadership qualities he provides, the counsel he provides to all of us. Jon Kyl is the go-to guy. Jon Kyl is the person you go to to say: Jon, how do we get this done? What should our strategy be? If you are on board, I think we can accomplish this. I know I am repeating a lot of what has been said already about Jon and will be said by others here who will come down, but to find someone this grounded in his endeavors is hard to find. Jon is also grounded in his faith, his faith in God, his faith in America, his faith in his constituents, his faith in this institution, not a perfect institution, one which we are struggling in right now, but his faith that in the end we are here to do what is best for America. In the end, we will need to make hard decisions. Jon has always been one leading that effort, always one willing to stand up to make those decisions. I count him as a friend. Marsha and I wish you, Jon, and Caryll, all the best in this next chapter of your life. I am comforted by the fact that you will not be more than a phone call away, and the fact that I am going to need wise counsel on a number of things; more than that, that we can retain a friendship which we have enjoyed in our service together on two separate occasions interrupted by 12 years. But I am looking forward to continuing to enjoy our time together. I want to wish you and Caryll not only our thanks, thanks from the people I represent and thanks from America for your service, but the very best wishes for both of you in the future. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator. Order for Recess

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the service of Senator Richard Lugar and to pay tribute to his legacy. I served alongside Senator Lugar as the junior Senator of Indiana during my two tours of service in the Senate. All of us who seek public service want to make a difference, and most certainly Senator Lugar has done that. At an early age Dick Lugar developed a passion for knowledge. A native of Indianapolis, he was valedictorian at Shortridge High School. It was then and is still a distinguished institution where knowledge is at the forefront of everything done in that school. One of our former Members, Ted Stevens, was also a graduate of Shortridge High School. Dick Lugar went on then to become valedictorian in college when he graduated from Denison University with a bachelor's degree in economics. He went on to attend Pembroke College at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar and obtained a second bachelor's degree and master's degree in politics, philosophy, and economics. Today he is one of the most decorated scholars in the Senate with 46 honorary degrees from 15 States and the District of Columbia. Following these most impressive academic achievements, Senator Lugar spent several years in the U.S. Navy ultimately serving as an intelligence briefer for ADM Arleigh Burke, Chief of Naval Operations. The Navy and Admiral Burke chose the best person they could for that particular job. Dick Lugar quickly became well known for not only his hard work but his leadership ability and his intellectual prowess. Senator Lugar then returned to Indiana where at the young age of 35 he became the mayor of Indianapolis, serving two terms from 1968 to 1975. There is no question that Dick Lugar is recognized as one of the most influential and visionary mayors Indiana has ever seen, and maybe the country has ever seen. Having just left military service myself, I was working full time attending Indiana Law School at night. That didn't leave much time for Marsha and me to enjoy the amenities of Indianapolis but, frankly, there were very few amenities to enjoy at that particular time. It was then that our newly elected mayor began a remarkable transformation of Indianapolis into now what has become one of the most attractive and livable cities in America. As mayor, Dick Lugar worked carefully with the Indiana General Assembly and then-Governor Ed Whitcomb to extend the boundaries of the city and merge the governments of Indianapolis and Marion County to provide common essential services more efficiently--a concept then called Unigov. Unigov wasn't without controversy, but because of Dick Lugar's vision, careful negotiations, and decisive action, Indianapolis became a model for other cities across the Nation. When the law took effect in 1970, Indianapolis's population rose from 476,000 to 793,000. Indianapolis moved from the 26th largest city to one of the Nation's largest dozen cities literally overnight. When I think of the numerous positive changes in Indianapolis over the past 40 years, I see the fulfillment of the vision of then-Mayor Dick Lugar. The Midwest has a way of producing men and women of sense and decency. However, not all of us fall into that category. Sometimes that sense is questioned, but we do have individuals who have the ability to see to the heart of the matter and to find a way to resolve a problem. Such skill is extremely valuable in the U.S. Senate, a body that by its very design is supposed to foster compromise between legislators on issues before the Nation. So it was a natural progression that following his success as mayor, Dick Lugar's next job would be serving Hoosiers as a U.S. Senator. Since 1977, Senator Lugar has represented Hoosiers and served our Nation admirably. Without question, Senator Lugar is the type of lawmaker and leader who works hard to bring both parties together, find common ground, and pass needed legislation. Although his contributions are many--including his long and valued service on the Senate Agriculture Committee--Senator Lugar's most important role in the Senate has to be his leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As a two-time chairman of this committee, he has been one of the most influential minds on foreign policy in the Senate's history. He has worked tirelessly on policies and legislation to promote arms control, control and dismantle nuclear arms, and to address the global food crisis. Among his many accomplishments in the field of foreign relations, his signature piece of legislation, no doubt, is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, more commonly known as Nunn-Lugar. When Senator Lugar joined the Foreign Relations Committee in 1979, he traveled to the former Soviet Union on multiple occasions to gain a better understanding of how the United States could secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. His experiences led him to champion the landmark legislation that successfully resulted in the deactivation of nuclear warheads, making this world a safer place. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads that were once aimed at the United States. It is a contribution to which Americans can never give enough thanks. Over his 36 years in this institution, Senators from both sides of the aisle have considered Dick Lugar a trusted resource when it comes to foreign policy and many other important issues. He has been a consistent resource for those who seek thoughtful answers to difficult political questions. When I first arrived here in 1989, Senator Lugar and I operated a unique joint office arrangement in Indiana. We shared office space and staff in our State. Many of our colleagues were surprised by this arrangement, but Dick Lugar and I like to tell Hoosiers that they are getting twice the service for half the price. All those who work in this Chamber can learn from Dick Lugar's passion for public service. His sincere desire to reach across the aisle and find common ground complements his unique talent for forging coalitions and bringing people together to accomplish big things. A tribute to Senator Lugar would be incomplete without recognizing the support of his wife Charlene, his four sons, and his extended family. Public service places unique demands on our families, and their sacrifice and support plays an important role in any Senator's success. It has been an honor for me to work with Senator Lugar. I am thankful for his service to Indiana and to our country. My wife Marsha and I wish Senator Lugar, Char, and his family nothing but the best as my dear friend begins this next chapter of his life. Senator Lugar has dedicated so much of his service to our country. He has outlined many other ways in which he will be continuing to do that and that is a great benefit to our Nation and to our State. I am certain we will continue to learn and benefit from the Senator's lifetime of public service. I know my colleagues join me in thanking Senator Lugar for his many years of dedicated and distinguished service. It has been a pleasure to serve as a junior Senator from Indiana under the Senator's leadership. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the clock continues to tick away while we wait for the descent from the summit, when the President and Speaker Boehner walk out, with tablets in hand, saying we have a deal. Many of us are beginning to wonder if that is going to be achievable. We are holding our breath. But as we near the end of the year, clearly as has been stated repeatedly on the floor, the necessity of putting something together to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, the disastrous consequences of our not acting, is clear. Tax increases for every American taxpayer, massive cuts to defense at a time when the threats around the world are as varied and as great as we have seen in a long time, other essential programs of the Federal Government being affected by that--that is the last thing we need. In this tepid economy with a lot of people out of work we are hoping for some consensus to come together to provide a long-term solution to our fiscal problem that continues to have a negative effect on our economy and, more importantly, keeps people out of work. As that clock ticks, some are saying partisanship is too great in Washington; the country is too divided; we are not going to be able to reach a consensus here in terms of how to address this problem. I disagree with that. Over the last 2 years and more, we have had a number of proposals brought forward on a bipartisan basis. It started with Simpson-Bowles; Bowles, the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton, and Al Simpson, a Member of this body for a long time, recognized as two individuals who can take a look at the situation we are in and make a proposal. That has been running 2-and-some years now. That was presented, the President's own commission, yet that was rejected by the President. Then of course there was the Gang of Six, later the Gang of Eight, which met on a bipartisan basis for a number of months, both sides contributing to an attempt at a package put together to submit to the Congress and to the White House. That was a bipartisan effort. The supercommittee of 12, 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans--they were unfortunately unable to come to an agreement. That has brought us to this particular point in time because failure of our effort to do this ended up in a procedure which drives us here at the end of the year toward this so-called cliff. I have been talking to a number of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats and others, and there is a majority consensus here for putting together a credible long-term package to deal with our fiscal situation. That would send a message to the world and send a message to our citizens that the Congress and the government are serious about addressing our fiscal situation and putting us on a path to fiscal health. In doing so, it would restore the confidence of the American people. It would restore the confidence of investors around the world that America is getting its act together at a time when Europe is struggling, at a time when Japan is struggling, when China's growth is slowing down. The world is looking to the United States to take the lead as it has so many times and in so many crises before. Yet all they see is a standoff and the inability to do what I think we all know we need to do. The choice is very clear. We have come to the point where I think most people looking at this understand that if we do not act now, the so-called kicking the can down the road no longer is a viable opportunity. It no longer is something we can afford to do. There is a group called The Can Kicks Back. I can see why the American people are frustrated over our inability to come to some agreement on this. Obviously we hope the President and Speaker Boehner will bring us that grand bargain which we can evaluate and address before the end of the year. I have frequently said from this podium and back to the people I represent in Indiana, if we do not start addressing the spending problem, it doesn't matter how much we raise in taxes or revenue, it doesn't matter how much else we do to address our problem-- if we do not address the out-of-control Federal spending, we cannot get from there to here. We cannot put forward a credible package. It is no secret that over the years--without laying the blame on one party or another--our spending has exceeded our revenues now to the extent that we are plunging into serious debt and serious deficit; over $1 trillion a year accumulated over the last 4 years, and a significant amount of money before that. It is unsustainable. Whether you are a liberal economist or conservative economist, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Libertarian, just do the math--and it is simple math; it is not calculus, it is third-grade math. You cannot keep spending $1 trillion a year more than you collect without having severe consequences. The consequence we have had is a very slow recovery from a very deep recession that has stifled job growth, stifled innovation, kept people out of work. The latest statistics are that over 23 million Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for a job, frustrated trying to find any work whatsoever, and a staggering percentage of those unemployed is young people, people under 30. Robert Samuelson wrote an article a couple of days ago asking, is this the lost generation, basically saying that those in the under-30 category may have lost--we may lose a whole generation, those who will not have the opportunity to gain meaningful employment, to realize their dreams, to participate in the American dream of getting a good job, of marrying and having a family, of buying a house, paying the mortgage--doing the things which our generation has enjoyed. We have been given that opportunity, but a generation behind us is being denied that opportunity, and will it be the lost generation. The answer to that question falls on the shoulders of those of us here--not only at the White House with the President and his advisers but with the Congress, the Senate and the House. We now have an opportunity, maybe an historic opportunity--I do believe it is an historic opportunity--to right the wrong and to put in place something that, yes, will have an impact on us. Yes, it is medicine we will have to take for our excessive spending, but it will bring about the cure. How many of us are thinking about the future for our children, our grandchildren, the Nation's children, the Nation's grandchildren? How many of us can stand here and simply say we are doing OK at our level, our generation, but we are not willing to make any sacrifice whatsoever to ensure that this country can provide for future generations? Most agree if we do not have a package that has $4 to $4.5 trillion of spending reduction over the next 10 years it will not be a credible package. There is also now almost universal agreement that we must incorporate long-term entitlement reform. Mandatory spending--over which we have no control of spending levels--and interest costs now eat up 64 percent of our budget and denies those who come to us about improving our roads, providing medical research, supporting education, whatever your interest--those interests are receiving less support than they have before. They will continue to see less support to the point they may receive no support because the mandatories projected with the baby boom retirement accelerate to points which our country can simply not afford. It will drive us into bankruptcy. If the package that is brought down hopefully from the White House does not address that, or if we do not address in this body the spending issue that incorporates the restructuring for the preservation of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security but also with a realization that unless we do something those programs are going to go bankrupt and have severe impacts on those currently receiving those benefits--unless we do that, we will not have a credible package. Senator Wyden and I have proposed comprehensive tax reform as something that needs to be done. Regulatory reform has been suggested by others, which I support. But if we do not acknowledge that the final package presented to us incorporates those long-term solutions, we will simply be back here in the next debt limit crisis. We will be back here in the next fiscal crisis. We will continue to see our country languish in terms of providing growth and job opportunities for our people, and we will not have addressed the problem of kick the can down the road one more time--I think to the disgust and displeasure of the American people. They are cynical enough about our ability to do something as we speak, let alone what might happen if we cannot come to an agreement that everybody knows we need to come to. When I decided to run again in 2010 after being out of the Senate for more than a decade, I did not do it just to regain the title of Senator. I did not put retirement on hold and more time with my family aside because I thought it would be fun to be back here. I did it because I want to be able to leave a stronger country for my children and grandchildren and for others' children and grandchildren. I did it because I want to restore this country so that America's future generations can enjoy the kind of life full of promise and opportunity that our generation has been able to enjoy. I look back over the history of our country and see the sacrifices being made--from the Revolutionary War all the way through the two-plus centuries--the world wars, the fiscal crises, the Depression--the sacrifices that have been made by former generations so that future generations can enjoy the promise of America, unique of any country in the world in terms of providing opportunities for individuals and their families. All of us have experienced that moment back home when a man or woman looks us in the eye and tells us they are putting their trust in us to do the right thing when we get back to Washington. They are putting their trust and faith in us to make sound decisions; that the votes we take on the Senate floor will strengthen our economy so they can make their mortgage payments, get a job, send their kids to college, and enjoy the opportunities and benefits that have been beneficial to so many of us. This is a great challenge. It is a historic moment. It is an opportunity to transcend politics, to rise above the petty, partisan decisions and join together to do what is right for the future of this country. We cannot do this without Presidential leadership. The President seems to have an obsession with raising taxes. We have not heard much from the White House in terms of addressing the spending issues or the issues that are driving our deficit forward. Unless these issues are addressed, it will not result in a credible solution to our problem. We are asking you, Mr. President, to join us in making the tough decisions, to do what I think we all know needs to be done and not push this into the future anymore. We cannot keep people out of work. There are over 23 million Americans who, on average, were considered underemployed over the past year. Of those underemployed Americans, 41 percent were 30 or under. We need to give them hope for the future and a light at the end of the tunnel. We are asking that you join us, and we are asking you to do a grand bargain and talk more than just about tax increases, which we know can impact our job opportunities and our economy. The Republicans have put forth ideas in terms of the revenue portion of that without raising rates and destroying the opportunities for the nearly 1 million businesses and others who don't fall in the corporate category. As David Brooks said recently in the New York Times: It's pointless to cut a short-term deal if entitlement programs are still structured to bankrupt our children. Republicans and Democrats could make 2013 the year of the truly Grand Bargain. So that is what we are imploring to you, Mr. President, and that is what we are asking all of our colleagues to consider. This historic opportunity is going to be our legacy. It is not about a vote we made in the past, and it might not be about a vote we make in the future. We will be judged at a time when the clock has run out, and there is an absolute necessity for a package that is grand enough to achieve credibility, and go forward to restore the confidence of the American people and the investment community and lead the world to recovery. This is our chance, Mr. President, and I hope we take that chance. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I just wanted to comment that I was listening to the discussion going on here about the Leahy amendment. I don't know what the history of all this is, but I simply want to say that I think the Senator from Oklahoma asked a very legitimate question that we all ought to consider; that is, Is this legitimately a Federal responsibility? Given the fiscal plight that we are in and careening toward the cliff, do we want to keep expanding Federal programs? But in deference to his colleagues and the timeframe here, he said he understands that it will be a virtually unanimous vote despite his question, which is legitimate and I think we all ought to consider. But that was rejected. And then the response to somebody who I think was trying to be deferential to the Senator from Vermont and his proposals sort of is put in a position where it looks as though he is not trying to be conscious of the situation that exists. I think he asked a legitimate question to which all of us, given our current fiscal situation, ought to give due consideration. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was listening to the dialog here that was going back and forth.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Americans have endured 4 years of the worst recession in the last 70 years in this country. We have 23 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, and millions more have simply given up finding a job. What is the President's response in the face of all this? Reject every plan presented by Republicans and, instead, spend $5 trillion of borrowed money leading--so-called leading--our country into decline and ultimately into bankruptcy. What is the Democratically led Senate's response? Avoid all efforts to formulate a plan to address this problem and to vote and debate on that plan on one of the most critical--if not the most critical--issues facing this country in its history. The American public is desperate for new leadership, both from the White House and from the Senate-- leadership that is absolutely necessary if we are to restore our Nation to growth and prosperity and get our people back to work.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, yesterday Senator Landrieu, chairman of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I entered a colloquy into the Record, and I would like to explain very briefly what it was we were attempting to do. This is essentially to clarify a provision regarding cyber security that is incorporated in the continuing resolution, which we will be taking up here shortly. I understand there has been confusion over section 137 as to whether the language that is now incorporated in the CR expands DHS authority or allows implementation of a potential Executive order pertaining to cyber security. The answer to that question is no, absolutely not. The provision is limited to funding improvements in the Federal Network Security Program, which provides security systems that monitor cyber attacks on Federal Government computer networks. It helps enhance the protection for those existing networks that are in place. It is important that both the House and Senate homeland security appropriations bills included this additional funding, and it is considered so critical, it was added to the continuing resolution so that this implementation can continue without interruption. It does so because these networks are constantly under attack by individuals and groups and others who could cause real problems and real harm to our country. So let me be very clear on the language that has been agreed on in a bipartisan basis and what the colloquy said. This provision does not intrude upon the authorizers' jurisdiction. This provision does not have anything to do with the regulation of private sector infrastructure. DHS has confirmed that in writing. And this provision does not enable a new Executive order in any way. I would be the first to object to this language if that were the case, and I believe we have now remedied any confusion that might exist over that particular language. I am hopeful that even though we were not able to ultimately pass and incorporate workable cyber protection language, that we can continue to work together. I wish to thank the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator Landrieu, for joining me and clarifying this important provision included in the continuing resolution. With that, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for allowing me the time, and unfortunately his good presentation was interrupted. I thank my colleague for the time to clarify that. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise today to address the legislation that has been offered as an amendment that would cut off all foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya. As I watched our flag being shredded by a gloating mob at the walls of the American Embassy in Cairo, I shared with fellow Hoosiers and Americans a sense of sadness and deep anger. That mob, and the one that led to the death of four American diplomats in Libya, including our Ambassador, or those who stormed our Embassy throughout the Muslim world, showed us again how much contempt and disrespect those people have for the United States and for Americans. Many in those countries clearly still hate us. As displayed on our televisions this past week, the Arab spring is evolving into a very bleak winter. Events this past year, and especially this past week in the Middle East and North Africa, continue to present us with enormous challenges. We have mishandled them badly. No one should be deluded enough to see it in any other way. The best judge of a policy is the results. By that measure our report card is found among the ashes of the consulate in Benghazi. The questions the administration and this body must answer soon is how best to react to this failure and what steps offer the greatest chances of making things right--or, at the very least, making things somewhat better. The search for answers must involve a complete reevaluation of the full range of American policy tools, including military actions, diplomatic dialogue, economic measures, multilateral efforts, and, simply, better leadership--not leadership that leads from behind. Now, it is understandable to ask: Why on Earth should we send one more dime to these people who hate us so much? We will soon be voting on an amendment that codifies the instinct to cut off all assistance programs to, yes, problematic countries including Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan. Based on recent events, I agree we need to reassess the foreign aid we do send to these countries. However, I also believe we need to avoid a shortsighted reaction and consider a broader review of the purposes and the costs of foreign aid. I wish to address those two issues. First of all, the costs. Foreign aid, as many do not know, is just a fraction of our Federal budget so we need to understand how much foreign aid costs taxpayers. Our foreign aid programs are less than 1 percent of the Federal budget and, put even more vividly, according to the OECD, just 0.12 percent of our gross national income is devoted to foreign aid. Not only is that figure about a tenth of the number of Sweden or Norway, but it is only a third of the figure for France and half as much as the United Kingdom. We even devote a smaller share of our national wealth for foreign assistance than, of all countries, Greece. I have been on this floor several times calling for Washington to get control of excessive spending and I take a back seat to no one in that effort. I have repeatedly said that in order to address our $16 trillion national debt everything must be on the table, including foreign aid. But we must assess and reassess all foreign aid to determine if it is still effective and even necessary. We should cut where it makes sense to cut. But when there is a discussion about eliminating all aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt, let's be honest with the American people about the true cost of all that. Together, this aid only constitutes a fraction of a single percent of our Federal budget, and cutting it would be nothing but a gesture toward the real austerity required to deal with our $16 trillion deficit. But that is not the primary reason and that is not the real question before us. The real question before us is, aside from the cost argument, which is minuscule, the national security reasons for why we should pause and consider our next step very carefully ought to drive us to think this through. We must keep a clear eye and recognize that sending American taxpayer dollars overseas is, first and foremost, a matter of strategic purposes and national security. I want to repeat that. We must remember that the money we send overseas is, first and foremost, a matter of strategic purpose and national security. Without that component, then we do have to reassess the value and what we receive in return for foreign aid. We can be sure that foreign assistance plays a role in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the world's poor. Today it is also central to the contest for political power. Other rivalries are apparent as well. China plays in the contest for political influence and access to natural resources by engaging in foreign assistance as defined by their own standards. Chinese assistance activities in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia grew from $1.5 billion in 2003 to $27.5 billion in 2006, a nearly twentyfold increase in 3 years, and it continues to grow and their influence continues to grow in those countries around the world as China expands its reach and exerts its influence. None of this means that we in the Senate should support wasteful foreign aid programs with little regard to solid purpose, good design, proper accountability, and visible standards of positive result. I want to see our foreign aid program reassessed. I believe we need to reevaluate the way we make our foreign aid determinations. But rather than cutting off all foreign aid in an instinctual way after these horrific scenes we have seen on television, it is important to step back and assess how we go about reassessing our distribution of foreign aid, what our strategic purposes are, and the other criteria that ought to be applied before we make a knee-jerk or too quick decision. To achieve our support I think these programs need to achieve three guidelines. First, which programs most clearly achieve our national security interests? If they do, it is money well spent. Second, which best reflect American values and encourage foreign countries to support and adopt those values? We need to support our friends first. And, third, which programs are most effective at the least cost? We need clear, unambiguous standards of what effective means. The consequence of no aid, though, is far greater now to the immediate question before us, which is the question of how we serve national security interests while at the same time ignoring the fact that the recipient may not be our best friend and may not support our broader purpose. In those cases--and Libya, Pakistan, and Egypt recently are among them--our broader strategic interest linked to our national security must have priority. Let's look at Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan, I and some of my colleagues are profoundly skeptical. In the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill markup this year, I joined with my colleague Senator Graham to cut a portion of our assistance to Pakistan because of the outrageous conviction and imprisonment of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped us locate Osama bin Laden. The cut was a gesture of our dissatisfaction with the regime's behavior and a signal more cuts could come should that behavior not improve. Yesterday I met with the Pakistan Foreign Minister and Ambassador to America from Pakistan. Earlier, Senator Graham and I had a lengthy discussion with the Ambassador. We conveyed our dissatisfaction with this decision and a number of other things that we have differences about with that country. At the time, Senator Graham said at the hearing that it may become necessary to cut aid off altogether but that time has not yet come. In my view, that time is not yet here, because what is at stake in Pakistan is so vast as to defy a brief description. A radicalized and hostile Muslim country with a potent, fully developed nuclear arsenal is the most dreadful global nightmare. We must continue to employ every single tool available to us to make sure that does not come to pass, despite how skeptical and pessimistic we might be about the future of that country. I am not arguing that our assistance packages to Pakistan have been well used, or even resulted in the support we seek or that the regime there has even shown much gratitude or respect in return. I am simply noting in this case the stakes are huge; the assistance programs do give us some leverage; and anger and despair are not a proper basis for us to make policy judgments, particularly when it comes to the security of the American people and our national interests. Let's look at Egypt. Similarly, we cannot abandon Egypt despite how we have come to judge the results of their elections. Those elections have shown us that once again a democratic vote does not ensure democracy or stability. Elections are a necessary condition for modern enlightened government, but much more is required. We must be there to help the political and security environment evolve in the right direction. Cutting off aid to the Egyptian military, arguably an essential element in Egypt's future political evolution, is bound to make it far harder to achieve our strategic objectives in the entire region. I believe even the Israeli Government would oppose an end to U.S. assistance because such a step could further radicalize the new government, the military, and even the population itself. Aid is one of the few tools we have that requires Egypt to maintain observance of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Let's look at Libya. The issue of aid to Libya is even clearer. It is no coincidence that the attack on our diplomat occurred on September 11. This attack was almost certainly generated by radical elements connected to al-Qaida or similar terrorist organizations active in this country. We have seen ample confirmation that neither the Libyan Government nor the vast majority of the Libyan people supported that violence in any way. What we have seen is Libya is in a fragile state of transition that simply must be supported and encouraged by us and our allies. We have seen a Libya that wants to support us, wants to go forward with democracy, but has yet to gain control of certain parts of its country and certain elements, infiltrated by terrorists and al- Qaida, certain elements that need to be addressed in terms of Libya's future and in terms of our own national interests. If we cut off aid to Libya, we risk losing the gains of that revolution to the radical elements that are active there and everywhere else in the region. It is impossible to see how ending our assistance programs would be a responsible move for our country and for our allies. Most of us in this body have just come from a lengthy discussion with our Director of National Intelligence, with Secretary Clinton, our Secretary of State, with top representatives from our military, from the FBI, and from the administration, discussing this very question, gathering all the information we possibly can, making sure we have the facts before we make a quick judgment about the role of Libya and the role of terrorists, and what we have seen to date is the response by the Libyan Government, even the firing of one of their top officials who made an inappropriate remark relative to this attack. In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to pause and look at the larger picture when it comes to foreign aid. Cutting off aid and disengaging from these countries is exactly what the perpetrators of these attacks and protesters are trying to achieve. I do not know if supporting the government in this volatile region and this revolutionary movement will bring the results we so urgently need, but if we are to review the tools available to us, and I am convinced we must, we should not begin by throwing out the tools we have. We need to sharpen those tools, better define their use, but not discard them prematurely. I yield the floor. Mortgage Foreclosure Practices