Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I concur with the clarification of my distinguished colleague from Louisiana on the continuing resolution funding and language regarding cyber security. I strongly support the inclusion of this provision and see it as essential, but also limited in scope to only the securing of our vulnerable Federal civilian networks. There is clearly disagreement about the best way to address cyber security more broadly, but that is a completely separate issue from the provision in this continuing resolution. As a result, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this provision does not intrude upon the authorizers' jurisdiction, enable a new Executive order on cyber security, or fund new actions to regulate private sector infrastructure in any way. Again, I thank the Chairman for yielding to me on this issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, 11 years ago this morning, September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 of our citizens lost their lives in a senseless act of terrorism that would change the course of America forever. That fateful Tuesday morning changed the way we think about life in America. It changed the way we travel. It changed the way we govern. It changed all of our lives, with some, of course, sacrificing much more than others. From the first responders who ran into the crumbling buildings and wreckage 11 years ago today to the Navy Seals who brought bin Laden to justice, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who continue to defend our freedom, countless Americans and their loved ones have served and sacrificed in the fight against terrorism for now more than a decade. The tragic events of September 11 have also resulted in a more vigilant Nation and a more prepared and proactive defense and security operation for the American people. The attack highlighted several vulnerabilities across State and Federal Government that had been ignored for too long, and many of those have been addressed and remedied. In the aftermath of this tragedy, Congress put aside political partisanship and worked together with the administration and its departments to strengthen our national security and intelligence efforts. Yet today we face another major potential attack on our country different from those we faced before, but just as dangerous and threatening. It is not a hijacked plane or a bomb, although that remains a significant threat, but it is rather a cyber attack, an attack using the interconnected Internet that governs some of our most critical infrastructure. This type of an attack comes across the wire or through the air targeting a system and taking it down, which would have a dramatic impact on our country. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that the threat of a cyber attack is real and far reaching. A major attack on our cyber systems could shut down our critical infrastructure, our financial systems, our communications systems, our electric grids, powerplants, water treatment centers, transportation systems, refineries, and other interconnected critical infrastructure that allows us to run our economy and protect the safety of Americans. Every day American businesses are victims of cyber intrusions. The threat and sophistication of these attacks is growing as we speak. Earlier this year FBI Director Robert Mueller warned that, in the near future, ``the cyber threat will pose the number one threat to our country.'' The reason I came here today, in addition to acknowledging the sacrifices of those that were made on September 11 and the sacrifices that have been made by tens of thousands if not millions of Americans since then and the kind of effort that has been put in place that will hopefully prevent us from such an attack in the future, is to address a failure on the part of this Congress and administration to respond to this most imminent and threatening attack through our cyber network. The week before the August recess, particularly in an election year, will, of course, be filled with partisanship here in Washington. But we hit a low point this year in adjourning for the August recess as we rushed to vote to consider a cyber bill, which did not convey the wishes of any of us who had worked for weeks and months to try to put something together that could gain bipartisanship and consensus. I voted to move forward with the bill, despite my concerns with the legislation, so we could keep it alive over the August recess and return here with this session reopening in September to address this threat. With precious few weeks left before the election and the precious few weeks left after the election and before the end of the year, I did not believe we could possibly leave here without putting the protections in place that are necessary to provide adequate defenses against a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure. One-fifth of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, met every day for weeks to iron out our differences on this cyber security legislation. We recognized that our national security was at stake. And despite some genuine disagreements, we all participated because we thought we could find--and had to find--common ground; not just common ground among the two political parties, but common ground between industry and government as well. Industry plays a critical role in this effort. With the active participation of 20 Senators representing both parties and key committees of jurisdiction, we came close. Unfortunately, politics threw a wrench in our plans before a negotiated settlement was reached. I remain hopeful, though, and I plan to keep working with my colleagues to find the right balance between government and industry, standards and incentives, free markets and national security. I was frustrated to discover that after sitting on the sidelines rather than working with Congress on this critical debate, the President had signaled his desire to regulate cyber security by executive fiat. No one can do this alone--not one party, not government, or industry, and certainly not by executive order, which on its best day cannot begin to provide the robust incentives and information sharing required to achieve sufficient collaboration. Congress must act to add cyber to its to-do list. I recognize that Congress and this administration have a long list of remaining items to address before the end of the year: the Defense authorization bill, the looming so-called Taxmageddon, which includes the scheduled increase in the current income tax rates, the alternative minimum tax patch, the estate tax, the research and development tax credit, other tax extenders, the fix for physician Medicare reimbursement, the impact of the across-the-board cuts through sequestration, and another impending debt ceiling. All of this is before us with just a little bit of time left. But what needs to be near the top or at the top of this list is cyber security legislation that provides flexibility, preserves personal liberties, and protects our country from a widespread cyber attack. Let's learn from the lessons of September 11 and not wait for a major strike before we act. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, government and the private sector, to make our country a safer, more prosperous place. I urge my colleagues to continue to work in a bipartisan manner to bring forward a responsible and balanced cyber security bill. The responsibility falls on all of us. We know this threat is ongoing and real. We know we need to act. And rather than acting alone, I call on the President to join with the Members of this Chamber and work together to do the right thing, to cast aside partisanship and put the security of our country above political security. There is a lot of focus and emphasis on the election that lies before us. That is natural. But when we are facing a threat as imminent and as potential and as real as this, we must do everything we can to transcend the politics of the day, and to look at the policy that needs to be put in place to make our country safer and protect our citizens. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I commend all the Republicans and Democrats who have worked so hard together--nearly one-fifth of us in this Congress--hour after hour, meeting after meeting, and flexibility has been provided to both sides by Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins and their bill and Senators Chambliss, McCain, Hutchison, and others in terms of trying to reach a consensus. Those who listened to the Senator from Maryland yesterday know we are given the unclassified version of the nature of this threat. Add to that the classified version, and it is truly a threat that needs to be addressed. It is despicable that the majority leader of the Senate, when we were so close to putting together something to bring joint support of what everybody knows we need to do and want to do--so close with agreements from Democrats and Republicans, ranking members and chairmen of the relevant committees, and presenting a package which would grant limited time and limited germane amendments--to deny us that opportunity. Yet here we are faced with a dilemma of an imminent threat facing the people of the United States of America and a vote whether to continue the process, continue to work with something that potentially could kill this for the rest of the session and maybe even next year or something that grants to the White House an abuse of executive power to mandate things through executive order, which we have seen on a number of other occasions. Maybe that is the motive, maybe it is not; I don't know. Nevertheless, we are faced with a critical choice in terms of an imminent threat to the security of the United States and the American people. I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration when we decide what to do. I thank people on both sides for their tremendous efforts, and we should not point fingers of blame at each other. That is a real effort to join and address this very serious threat to the United States. I thank my friend and yield back to him.

Mr. COATS. Will my friend yield me some time?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, whether it is the family my wife grew up with and knew or the one in Posey County, IN, who brought their neighbors together for a meeting a few months ago or whether it is a family or business owner or small businesses across the State of Indiana that I have talked to repeatedly, they basically say: I resent being called rich by the President, who said they need to pay more in taxes. We have been working our tails off for generations, and we have been paying our taxes faithfully for the profits we made--the years we have made profits. Yet we are being classified as some type of an elite group that is not paying their fair share. We can look back and we read statistics, such as 47 percent of Americans aren't paying any income taxes, while we are out there creating jobs, building a business--with sometimes good years, sometimes bad years--over a lifetime. There is value added to that business, but that value is in machines, it is in buildings and land, in terms of farmers. Yet that gets evaluated when we die at a level which means we can't pass it on. We can't afford to pass it on to other generations and we have to sell it. The Federal Government, having taxed us all our life on the profits we have made-- the income taxes, the Social Security contributions, the Medicare contributions, the sales taxes, the personal property taxes, the car taxes, the boat taxes, if one has a boat, the excise taxes, the liquor taxes, the beer tax, the sales tax and on and on and on it goes--it is not just the income tax we are being taxed on. There is not a tax that government doesn't like or want to impose on the American people. Why would anyone, of either party, at a time of economic distress-- when the United States is the only country struggling to stay ahead and perhaps lead the world back into economic growth, at a time when we are seeing signs of a potential double-dip recession facing us, and the news in the last few days has been dramatically bad--want to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that says you are not paying enough if you own a small business or if you own a farm. You are not paying enough, so we think 55 percent is a fair rate--55 percent if you die, after you have paid taxes all your life to a Federal Government which is bloated and duplicative. The bureaucracy here is out of control. Congress hasn't lived up to its responsibility to take any kind of sensible fiscal measures that will get us back on track in terms of battling our budget and not spending more than we take in. Throughout all the efforts that have taken place throughout 2011, and some in 2012, we still have not come up with a program, with a budget arrangement which will put us on the path to fiscal health. Yet what is the response from the other side? The response is: Let's impose another tax. So at 4 o'clock today, Members are going to come down and vote in terms of whether they want to impose a 55-percent death tax on people who are already being taxed to death. I will yield the floor, but then I am sure my colleagues will want to ask for their own recognition.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about two things here briefly and also yield to my colleague for some remarks. First of all, while it is beyond our jurisdiction here, and perhaps it is a little bit out of line for me to talk about this, I am urging the Congress, specifically in this case the House of Representatives, to follow this body in passing the farm bill. I do so for a number of reasons. Even though I had some problems with the farm bill, and I fully understand the issue, there are those who believe those policies that directly affect agriculture are being subordinated to a bill which incorporates about 80 percent of that bill for Federal food assistance. These are nutrition issues which, of course, are related to agriculture. By the same token, it is a Federal program that is significantly different than what the farm bill is designed to accomplish. So about 20 percent of that bill affects the farmers in our area, the other 80 percent goes to a Federal welfare type of program for providing food stamps and other nutrition assistance. I am hoping that the House, particularly in light of the fact we are suffering a significant drought, probably the worst drought since 1950 according to the weather records, and getting worse all the time--the temperatures have been in the low hundreds all across the Midwest, the bread basket of America, where we produce most of our grain and feedstock. The cornfields and soybean fields and other pastures are burning up with blazing sun in the hundreds of degrees every day and no water falling from the sky. This drought is seriously impacting my State, but also a number of Midwestern States and especially the States that produce the bulk of our agricultural products. This affects not only needed crops to provide feedstock, but also that support our ethanol program and a number of other programs. It is a dire situation. I am hoping the House can resolve its issues and move forward. There are a number of provisions in this farm bill that provide relief to farmers and ranchers suffering from this drought. Those are expired. So it is important that we pass this bill, that we get it passed by both Houses of Congress and into conference, resolved and signed by the President. I am urging my colleagues in the House, where I once served, to help with this by moving forward on this farm bill. The other point I want to make is that we are about to face--we just learned from our leadership, we are about to enter into a short amount of debate before we vote on a motion to address taxes. This also directly affects our agriculture community and we will explain why. But I wish to yield to my colleague here from Mississippi for some comments in this regard.

Mr. COATS. I thank my colleagues for joining in on this. They made the point that I think outlines the fact that many of us are stunned with the proposal being brought forward for a vote today to proceed on this bill, which if passed, will put a 55-percent tax, when one dies, on all the work and all the profits and all of the investments they have made throughout their lifetime, which they have paid taxes on over and over and over. The government cannot ever seem to get enough. The Senate Democrats are now proposing to raise the death tax from 35 percent, the current level, to 55 percent. Let me personalize this for a moment. We have some very close friends who, throughout generations, have been handing the farm down from one generation to another. They have suffered through the hard times, the droughts, the hail storms, the tornadoes, and they have also benefited from the good times when the rains have come and the soil was good and the yield was good. Yet right now they are suffering in a way they have not in more than a half century with this drought that is unrelenting all across the Midwest in this country. It takes in almost the entire Farm Belt of the Midwest and Upper Midwest, where most of our grain and products are grown. At a time like this, to bring forth a piece of legislation that basically says not only are you being nailed by the weather--and we, obviously, cannot do anything about that except provide some basic form of financial relief to get through this particular time; and that is what I talked about earlier--but we are going to nail you with a tax that, when you die, will basically prevent you from passing on your business or your farm to the next generation. As I said, to personalize it, we have some dear friends--more than one couple. I have also talked to people throughout Indiana where the pride in holding their ground as part of their extended family, covering more than one and two generations, and the work they have put in, in order to preserve that hand-down to their children and to their grandchildren now goes up in flames because when they die, if their farm is valued at more than $1 million, they are imposed with a 55- percent tax on the value of everything over $1 million. People say they are millionaires. No, they are not. They are sitting on property that might be valued at that, but they might be losing money. For sure, this year, they are not going to make any money because they have had to plow their corn under because it hasn't gotten the rain and moisture it needs and it will not grow. We don't yet know the extent of this disaster, but to preserve that within the families and hope for better years to come, that will not happen because, as the Senator from South Dakota said, they are going to have to value their land--the IRS will value their land at a price that the only way they can pay for that is to sell their assets. Why in the world would they do that at a time of economic turmoil and cause a drift back essentially into recession? This country is not in good economic shape. Compared to Europe, we are in better shape, but if you look at the numbers, they are not trending the right way. Why at a time like this would you walk onto the floor of the United States Senate and put up a bill that will raise taxes on people who are already suffering from 35 percent to 55 percent? How high does it have to go? How many taxes have to be imposed on the American people before they say that is enough? They are saying: Clean up your spending process in Washington so we don't have to pay so much in taxes to cover all you are doing there. My colleagues would like to continue to respond. I want to turn to my colleague

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I now turn to my colleague from Kansas, and I tell him about one of the families very close to us--my wife grew up with her lifetime friend, who married a farm boy from Kansas. They ran a farm near Norton, KS. We speak with them regularly. Even though we are city people, we have learned from them the sacrifice that goes into maintaining a farm, the suffering that occurs from the whims of the weather, the prices of the crops. We see them struggle and struggle, and this obviously will not be a good year. But this is a farm that has been passed down to the third generation now. They own a lot of land. As the Senator knows, Kansas has a lot of land. And they didn't get the rainfall we did. I know this is a situation that ends the dream that has been passed down from generation to generation because on the death of the current owners of the farm, the tax on that would force them to sell their land.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to comment on a couple of things. One is the dialog that took place this morning between the majority leader and the minority leader regarding how the Senate should function. There were two different views on this between the two, and they had quite a back-and-forth exchange. I am not sure how many people in America were watching that conversation this morning, but I watched in my office while I was trying to catch up on some other work and then found myself pretty engaged in that discussion. It all stemmed from the fact that the majority leader announced he was not going to bring any of the appropriations bills to the floor for debate, consideration, amendment, or voting. I am a Member of that Appropriations Committee. The initial information passed on to us was that we would return to regular order; that is, the committees forming, through the committee process, how we spend our money, the limitations, where it should be sent. We have held all the hearings. We bring in all the agencies. Everybody presents their budget, defends their budget. We make decisions, and we come up with legislation--13 separate pieces of legislation--that essentially covers the functions of this Congress and how we are going to pay for it. So we go through all this work. We work through subcommittee, then we work through the full committee, and then the bills are ready, stacked up, waiting to be brought to the floor to be debated by Members--both Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle--with amendments offered. The same process happens in the House. We merge the two bills. We bring one product here. We make a final vote on that and send it to the President. He either signs it or rejects it. But that is a necessary procedure that is a written part of the way this Congress is designed to function. Yet that procedure has essentially been discarded. To then hear that after all that effort by all of us in our respective committees, including the Appropriations Committee but also authorizing committees in terms of how we are going to spend the money and what direction it goes--after all of this effort, we are told: No, none of those bills will be brought to the floor. Well, that is not the function of the Senate. The response is, well, we will put it all into one big bill at the end--13 bills, called an omnibus bill. Earlier, we had something put together called a minibus-- they took three major bills, and put them together--and we were then asked to have either a ``yes'' or a ``no'' vote on the whole thing. You know, there is a reason the public is so frustrated with the Congress. They cannot get clear answers from their respective Members as to whether they are for something or against something because when you combine all of those bills together, of course you are for parts of it and you are against parts of it, but Members are only allowed one vote, yes or no. When I ran for office in 2010, I pledged to the people of Indiana that if I were elected, I would let my yes be yes and my no be no as it applied to a specific program or a specific spending item so that they could then evaluate their Senator in terms of how he was representing them. And they could then make a judgment that, I want to support this person or I am opposed to supporting this person because I do not agree with his vote on this or I support him because I do agree with a vote he took. That is the clarity and transparency the American people are asking for. Of course, they are getting exactly the opposite here. The other problem with not bringing these bills to the floor one by one and having open debate, with the opportunity to offer amendments, to adjust them--you either pass your amendment or you do not pass your amendment, but in the end the whole thing has been vetted, vetted in front for the American to see, for us to understand, and therefore, when we do vote, we know that our yes means yes and our no means no. So it is a mystery to me why this year and in previous years under the leadership of the majority leader we have not done what the Senate, historically is designed to do and has done and what I think is a duty and a responsibility to the people whom we represent. Now, in normal times of economic growth, maybe you can get away with something like this. But at a time when lack of action in Congress contributes to an already staggering economy--many analysts say we are heading back into recession--when we look at the situation around the world and see the slowing down of economic activity and the problems in China and Brazil and in India, the major markets, and we see what is happening in Europe, and we read from analysts their evaluation of our current economic situation and this fiscal cliff that we are driving toward by the end of the year unless we address it, how uncertainty over all of that is negatively affecting our economy and affecting those who are in a position to either buy new machinery for their plant, increase employment, do more research, or expand a business. They are frozen in time saying: I cannot make decisions because there is uncertainty about what money will be available, what our budget will be, what our tax rate will be, what our health care obligations will be, what the Federal Government will be doing with this budget and how it affects our business. So whether it is paving roads or funding hospitals, addressing education issues or any other function that Federal, State, local governments or individuals and businesses get involved in, this cloud of uncertainty that has settled over this country has kept us from putting those policies in place that are going to restore our country to economic growth, that are going to put people back to work and get our country back on track toward fiscal health. This is an issue that should not be dividing us on a partisan basis. Whether you are listening to a liberal economic commentator or conservative economic analyst, there is a growing consensus that inactivity, this stalemate that exists is contributing significantly, and the failure to address the fact that we are heading toward this fiscal cliff, with all its ramifications, will have enormous negative consequences if we do not take some action. So it is not just about the appropriations process, although I think that speaks to the dysfunction of this Senate. It is also about the larger question of some of the major issues that lie before us that the Congress is simply not addressing. We are viewed as a dysfunctional institution, either incapable or unwilling to address the critical issues facing our country--in particular, the dismal state of our economy and the fact that we have now for 41 straight months had unemployment above 8 percent. This morning more than 12 million Americans woke up without a job and many others woke up with a job much below their abilities, much below what they had hoped to gain in a salary and a pay package that allows them to pay the mortgage, buy the groceries, save for their children's education. So the underemployed combined with the unemployed is a staggering number. That is something I believe we have a moral duty to address. We may have a disagreement on the policies to address this crisis. I understand that. But when we are not even allowed to come down to this floor and debate those policies and have a package of legislation in front of us that we think will address some of these situations, that is simply taking a pass at a time when our country desperately needs us to be engaged. If you looked at the Washington Post this morning, you saw the account of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, his testimony before the Senate yesterday, and I want to quote what he said: The most effective way that the Congress could help support the economy right now would be to work to address the Nation's fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery. I think if that question was posed to a Member of this body, whether that Member is conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, I think most would simply say: I agree with that. I cannot find fault with what he said. You know, we look to the Fed to solve all of our problems but the Fed has used about every major tool they have--they might have a couple of little ones left. You can only do so much with monetary policy. The problem is fiscal policy, and fiscal policy is the responsibility of the Congress and the executive branch and the President. Look, it is clear that we are not going to get any leadership from this President, at least until after this election has taken place. He is clearly in campaign mode. He is not doing business out of the White House relative to policy. He even said months and months ago: Well, we are not really going to do any more this year. So that has all been put on hold. Well, in normal times, that might be what Presidents ought to be doing. These are not normal times. We are not getting the leadership we need. And everything we tried to do in 2011 was stopped simply because we did not get support from the top. But let's set that aside right now and acknowledge that what the Federal Reserve Chairman has said will have a major negative impact on this economy if Congress does not step up and take its responsibility and do what we all know we need to do. I repeat again that statement by the Federal Reserve Chairman: The most effective way that the Congress could help support the economy right now would be to work to address the nation's fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the economy. Economists from across the political spectrum are sounding the alarm. Analysts report that the threat of the fiscal crisis in Europe is now being displaced by the threat of our country's inaction and refusal to address this fiscal cliff now. The American people and American industry and American businesses need to know what our plan is to stabilize our economy. Yes, it is important what Spain is doing and Italy is doing and Greece is doing and Germany is doing and France is doing to work on the European situation. Those of us who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. There is a lot of criticism over what they are doing or not doing across the Atlantic. But we ought to be looking at ourselves and saying: How dare we tell them what they need to do--as some have tried to do--when we are not doing anything ourselves to address this. The failure of Congress to act is having a negative impact, not only in my State but across the country. Household confidence is waning. Retail sales are down, according to the latest report. The manufacturing sector is taking a hit. As I said earlier, there have been 41 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent. So it falls to Congress to act. Unfortunately, now we have been told that even on the regular process of how we act on a year-by-year basis to set the spending standards for the taxpayers' hard-earned money out of this Federal Government, set those standards, we are unwilling to have open debates, we are unwilling--the majority leader will not allow us to have amendments, will not even bring the bill to the floor. All of this legislation is needed to ostensibly run this Federal Government. Yet it is being run in a way that throws everything into the pot. It goes right up to the edge, and we have this drama about whether they will pass it or not pass it. In the meantime, the negative impact that it has on our economy is very troubling and not something we ought to be doing. So here I am again voicing my frustration over our inability to step up to the responsibility that has been given to us by the American people to come here and do our very best, make our best arguments, put forward our best plan, but come to some conclusion as to where we are going in this country in dealing with this fiscal cliff. It is not just a fiscal cliff, it is a whole range of issues that have enormous implications for our national defense, for our economy, for our budget, for going forward for our retirees, for those beneficiaries of some of the programs of the Federal Government--major implications--and all of that is left in a cloud of uncertainty. The interesting thing to me is that whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you are President of the United States or a candidate for President of the United States, good policy is what the American people are looking for. Action is what they are looking for. Debate is what they are looking for, and then putting that forward with some sense of certainty in terms of where we are going. But right now politics seems to be dominating the Presidential race. I do not think there is anything we can do about that, but what we can do here in this body is acknowledge what was acknowledged by a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans in 2011 but not accomplished; what we can do is what we have the responsibility to do, and that is to step into the breach and do everything we can to put those policies in place that I think there is substantial agreement on, put those policies in place that will get our economy moving again, and, most important, put some certainty into what the future looks like so that those who go shopping and those who make products and those who are part of our American economy have the certainty of knowing what the future looks like so they can make decisions. We have a chance, Mr. President--even as recent discoveries can lead us to energy independence, given our established rule of law, given the fact that right now America is the only safe haven--even though it is getting less safe--to invest your money if you are overseas--we have the opportunity, if we step up to our responsibilities, to open a new chapter and put America back in its place as that ``shining city on a hill,'' that place of freedom and opportunity where you want to put your money and invest, raise your children, an opportunity to be the country the world looks at to take the lead. We have a golden opportunity now to send that signal. I think the investment markets would respond dramatically, we would start putting people back to work, and get our economy humming again. People would then look at us and say: They are taking this debt and deficit situation seriously. They put a credible long-term plan in place to address it, and we have the confidence to go forward, knowing that America will still be the place to live, work, raise a family, and invest. We can bring our economy back. I am trying to end on a positive note simply by saying good policy is good politics. The people are hungry for us to stand up and basically say this is what we believe in, what we stand for. Yes, we had to modify this or that in order to get consent on going forward, but we are going forward. We know what the plan will be, and we can send a signal to the world that Congress has lived up to those responsibilities. You are not going to get it out of the White House-- at least until November. This is the body where the responsibility falls. I think we all need to stand up and understand not only our constitutional duties but our moral responsibility to move forward and in the regular order address these issues that are so critical to the future of this Nation. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I came down to the floor early to line up in the queue to talk about taxes and the proposal that has just been discussed. I sat here in amazement as the Senator from Utah has just expressed, and as the minority leader expressed the redefinition of ``filibuster.'' It was a tortured effort on the part of the majority leader to try to redefine it in a way that had just the opposite effect of what a filibuster really is. I wish the majority leader had been at our caucus luncheon yesterday when we debated whether we would vote against the cloture motion to proceed on this bill. The consent of our caucus was, no; we welcome a debate on taxes. We welcome the opportunity to move forward and discuss our two visions of how we need to revive this economy. So let's not use parliamentary tricks or a parliamentary procedure to avoid that debate and to avoid a vote on the President's proposal. We realized there was the opportunity for the majority leader to use parliamentary tricks and procedures in order to deny us the opportunity to offer our own version of what we thought we should do with our Tax Code and provisions, particularly as it reflects this particular tax on small business, but we welcome the opportunity to come and debate that and work through it and, hopefully, make an offer that is acceptable. So the minority leader came down here this morning and turned to the majority leader and said: We are going to give you your vote. We are not going to use parliamentary procedures to prevent you from having an opportunity to vote on your proposal, the President's proposal. By some tortured way of opposing this, the majority leader essentially said: There you go again. Republicans are filibustering. I think we all just sat here with our mouths agape saying: Have we missed something? We are offering to give you your vote. Now, it is clear this center aisle--not completely--divides us in terms of how we think we should go forward in dealing with this very sick and anemic economy. There is probably pretty close to a consensus that tax reform needs to be an essential part of what we need to do. In a bipartisan way, Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Dan Coats, a Republican from Indiana, have been working for 1\1/2\ years now on something that was started with Senator Gregg, who is now retired from distinguished service in the Senate but worked with Senator Wyden for 2 years in putting a package together, a comprehensive tax reform package. It is the only plan out there that has been written, scored, and is available for debate and available to the tax-writing committees to use as a basis--or foundation or parts of it or all of it or whatever--in forming their own version to bring forward. But there is a bipartisan consensus that we ought to move forward on comprehensive tax reform. Senator Hatch, our Republican leader in the Finance Committee--which is the committee responsible for writing that bill--has said piecemeal is not the way to go. Anybody who has analyzed our current situation understands that comprehensive tax reform is the best solution. But even Senator Hatch agreed, in this instance, given the situation we now face, he would accept going forward with a short-term proposal that would give us 1 year to put together a comprehensive tax reform package. The last one occurred in 1986, so long past time we overhaul the Tax Code. With all the credits and subsidies and additions and addendums to the current Tax Code, it is complex beyond anybody's ability to fully understand. And it isn't fair. It favors some at the expense of the many. In many cases, there are special credits and tax breaks that go to a single industry. So we need much more fairness across the board, and that is what Senator Wyden and I attempt to do in our proposal. The word ``fairness'' is thrown around here as a condemnation on the Republican Party's ability to achieve bipartisan consent, but if we want to talk about fairness, let's talk about what just happened here. It was imminently fair for the minority leader to offer the Democrats a vote on the President's proposal. All we asked in return was an opportunity to present, debate and vote on our proposal. What is amazing is that the Democratic Party controls the Senate. They have the votes to pass the President's proposal. So in the end, if they voted in unison with the President, their proposal wins. If we vote and we come up short, we lose. Obviously, there must be a reason they don't want that vote. They don't want an alternative presented to them because they must fear they would lose votes on their side of the aisle for the President's proposal, and we would gain votes from them on our side. It has happened in the past, and apparently that is the decision they made. But this torturous explanation of how this could be a Republican filibuster--if they can spin this one at the White House and at the press conference today, or if they can spin this through the press, they are not listening or understanding what is actually going on here. What is going on here is a decided attempt by the majority leader to protect his party from having to take a vote for or against. If the American people want anything out of this body, and if they are disgusted with anything that comes out of this body, it is when people go home and say: Well, we didn't have a real vote on that. There was a procedural this or that and it got stopped here or modified there or the others tied up the legislative tree. What in the world does that mean to most people outside of this body? They used some procedural way to avoid a real vote. They want our yes to be yes and our no to be no, and we are offering to the Democratic leader that opportunity. Let your yes be yes and your no be no on the specific bill before us, and then go home and explain to your people why you voted yes or why you voted no. Then they can decide in this democratic process whether they want to send you back or send somebody else back for you. The American people aren't getting that kind of clarity right now, and it is no wonder they are disgusted with Congress. It is 10:00 in the morning when we are talking about this. If they get a fair treatment in the press over what happened this morning, they will fully easily grasp and understand that what was proposed by the Republicans was nothing but fairness, and what was proposed by the other party was nothing but unfairness. What could be more fair than giving each side, in a divided vision of how we should go forward, their opportunity to debate what they believe in and to call a vote for it? Particularly from the party that has the votes to win and the party that has the votes not to win, why not have the vote? What have you got to lose? Unless you think you are going to lose your own people or not want to put them on the line for having a yes or a no recorded clearly before the American people. I have diverted from what I was going to say this morning. I was just so amazed by what took place down here I could not help but comment on it. We will see how this all gets spun out by the White House. We will see what is the next diversionary tactic they use to stop us from talking about the No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 issue facing this country; that is, this anemic economy. Eighty thousand jobs? Only eighty thousand jobs created in June. People say we are on the right track? That doesn't even replace the number of people who are retiring, let alone add new jobs. How many college graduates this spring are living in the basement of their parents' home? That has happened now for more than 3 years. There are millions, 12.7 million people who woke this morning with no job to go to. There are many more who woke to go to jobs far below their abilities or training. So 80,000 jobs, let's put this in perspective. It is far below what we need just to break even, just to give anybody a new shot and a new chance. We have had 3\1/2\ years of the policies of this administration which have not improved the situation and, in fact, some have said are making it worse. We all know we have come through a tough time. We all know just sticking the blame against one side or the other is not the solution. The solution is to find how to put sensible policies in place that will get this economy moving again. One of those policies is comprehensive tax reform. Once again, I bring up the Wyden-Coats bill. It has been out there. It is written. It is scored. It is available to take up right now if that were the case, but because the tax-writing committees have the jurisdictional right to have a say and because it is a complex process, they would like some time to put it together. The proposal of Senator Hatch, eminently fair, is to basically say let's not put a bandaid on the Tax Code now with something that is not going to make much difference at all and, in fact, we believe, will negatively impact small businesses around the country. I had a small business group in my office yesterday basically saying the President only talks about the middle class. That is whom I hire, they say. That is who is working in our business. If they put a tax on me, the owner of the business, actually it is a tax on the business-- the passthroughs, the noncorporations that exist here where, from a tax basis, everything flows through to that individual taxpayer. They say I am the guy who owns the business. I am the guy who makes the decision on hiring. I am the guy who has to put the health care plan together. I am the guy who hires the people and pays the people. If government taxes me more, I do not have the same flexibility to hire, expand or buy equipment or expand my factory or hire more people. Yes, the White House can go out and spin it like I am a rich guy, but because I have chosen a certain way in order to form my business--not as a corporation--I am taxed in an entirely different way than corporations. But if you go out and say we are giving the middle class a break--and we are hurting the people who employ the middle class and you are raising their taxes--you are hurting the middle-class people. The very people the President says he is trying to protect, he is hurting by raising this tax. The President himself said in his campaign and throughout his Presidency: The worst thing you can do is raise any taxes during a time of economic distress. I do not care if you are Paul Krugman or if you are the most conservative economic analyst out there, there is a widespread consensus that the last thing you do is raise taxes at a time of a stagnant economy, a recessionary economy. It is the last thing you do. Dan Coats just said that, respected economists on the left and right said that, and even the President of the United States said that as a candidate and throughout his Presidency. In 2010, the President said the last thing we should do is raise any taxes. Now he has turned around to say let's tax up to 1 million small businesses because obviously they can spin that and play that in what sounds like a politically opportune way. It is a direct contradiction coming out of the mouth of the President, out of the mouths of others. It is simply an election year political class division ploy to divert from the miserable record under this administration, in terms of dealing with this economy. Frankly, if they know--we can hardly conclude anything, but they just do not know what they are doing. But even if they know what they are doing, their policies have not worked. Whether it is Republicans or Democrats, if they have done something for 3\1/2\ years and it has not worked, isn't it time to look at a different set of policies? That is what we wanted to debate, but the majority leader is not allowing us to debate. In some excruciatingly, twisted way, he is saying Republicans are trying to prevent us from going forward. It boggles the mind. I will stop with that and yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak up to 20 minutes. I do not intend to take that much time, I do not think I will take that much time, but I think I will probably go over the 10-minute limit.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to raise the point of order that section 1538 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348 violates rule XXVIII as it is a matter not committed by either House. This is not a partisan issue. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, and I reached an agreement on how to deal with this issue. Yet during this conference work that was proceeding in the dark of the night----

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I ask what the procedure is regarding time?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I jumped the gun a little bit. This gives me a chance to explain it twice. Let me say there was a bipartisan agreement that was reached on this. I will not name names, but after it went over to the House, somebody dropped something in the middle of the night to change this whole process. The issue is not just so-called Asian carp; the issue is that if this language is allowed to proceed, we will be authorizing over $100 billion of potential spending to address this without any review by the Congress. All we ask for in our agreement was a simple opportunity to review the study by the Corps of Engineers so we can make a decision based on all the facts, which included over $100 billion of authorized spending. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to waive this rule.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not debating it. I am explaining it.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. COATS. If the Senator would yield, I appreciate very much her saying that. I did commend, and I will again, the work the Senator from California and Senator Inhofe have done in bringing this bill forward in the right way. I know my friend is as sorry as I am that someone in the other body decided to violate the rule, injecting into all the hard work that has been done. I regret that. I hope in the future we can avoid this. I thank the Senator for her good words.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise here today to express my deep concern with this transportation conference report; in particular, about a provision that was slipped into the transportation conference report literally in the dark of night earlier this week. This provision, which I will describe, could have a devastating effect on my State as well as the State of Illinois. The Greater Chicago metropolitan region--whether it is northwest Indiana or northeast Illinois--is a region that works together. It is part of the expanded metropolitan area. A critical part of this is a waterway, which allows goods to be transferred up and down all the way to the delta and the Mississippi and all the way out to the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is the middle-west access to commerce that centers around the Chicago-northwest Indiana area. This provision, which was slipped in without debate, without consideration--it did not appear in the Senate bill, the transportation bill, and it did not appear in the House transportation bill and therefore is a blatant violation of rule XXVIII, which simply states you cannot do this kind of thing--but it was done anyway. I will at the proper point here raise an objection to that in a procedural way. Let me first talk, if I could, about the way in which we do business around here. Throughout my campaign in 2010 to return to the Senate, I continually heard from people as to how frustrated they were with the process by which laws are passed. We come home and people say why did you vote against that? You say I voted against that because it included this over here which was not relevant to it, and even though I liked the rest of the bill I did not like this part--or vice versa. I voted for this even though I did not like what it included because they packaged it all together and therefore there is nothing on record as to where I stand. They say to us where do you stand? We don't know whether your yes is a yes or your no is a no because it is so confusing the way you mix the whole thing together. That is exactly what is happening here today. We have taken a transportation bill, which was adeptly led by the Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma, they did a marvelous job putting a transportation package together, and now it is merged with two other major provisions. So we get one vote on this. People say: I have a real problem with the student loan bill or I have a real problem with the flood insurance bill, but I wanted to vote for the transportation bill. Now I am stuck in the position of having to vote yes on the whole thing, except what I have a problem with, another bill over here, or no, even though I want parts of the other bills to pass. Then we go home and explain this to the people we represent and they say: Why can't you guys and ladies take up one thing, vote yes or vote no, come home, defend your vote, but we at least know where you stand? Instead of this gobbledygook, throw everything in one big pot and vote your yes or vote your no. The way we package bills here, it is no wonder people are skeptical. It is no wonder our approval rating is where it is. This gobbledygook, so-called magic dust that we use around here to obscure what we stand for and stand against, is very frustrating for the American people. I can't tell you how much that has been expressed to me when I can go home and talk to them and try to explain certain votes and procedures. They say be straight up, be transparent. Pick out something; you are either for it or against it. We will evaluate whether we want to support you or not support you in the next election on the basis of your voting, but when you cloud over the whole thing we do not know what is going on. That is one thing, packaging bills. Second, we have a problem here, a major problem with our debt. We have known that. We spent the first 6 months of 2011 trying to come up with a long-term solution which would restructure some of our spending and put a lid on some of our spending. Finally, by August of 2011, Congress reached an agreement called the Budget Control Act which basically put caps on how much we would spend, trying to hold down this plunge into debt. By the way, just before I came over here I checked the debt clock which I have on my Web site. The numbers of course turn faster than you can write them down because that is how fast we are plunging into more debt, but as of probably minutes or so ago, our national debt stood at $15 trillion, nearly $16 trillion. None of us can comprehend what $1 trillion is. It is impossible. There have been all kinds of examples--if you stack dollars on top of each other you can go to the Moon and back and so forth--but I think it is important that we understand the gravity of our situation in terms of our plunge into debt and what impact it is going to have on the future for this country and what a debt burden it is going to be on future generations now getting ever closer to--$15,935,594,616,879 was what our debt was. That is 14 digits; 15,935,594,616,879. We took a little bit of a step in August, a mini step in August, saying we are going to cap this spending so we do not spend more than that going forward. That will at least slow down the rate of plunging into debt. It does not begin to do what we need to do to address this, but it will slow it down. What have we done since? What we have done is bring a number of bills to this floor, all of which continue to spend beyond our means. I did not vote for the Budget Control Act because I had a lot of skepticism about it. First of all, I felt it was woefully short of what we needed and, second, I believe that, having served here before and seen how this process works, I thought we are going to waive points of order time after time. We congratulate each other by voting for spending controls. ``This is an important step to dealing with our budget crisis. We have committed now not to spend more than the budget we deemed allows.'' The postal reform bill violated budget rules; the student loan interest rate extension, it looks as though we have the score now, and we are going to violate agreed to levels; the Senate version that went over on the transportation bill violated budget rules; the payroll tax extension and the Violence Against Women Act--all violated what we promised we would do. And we wonder why the American people are skeptical? We wonder why our approval rating is in the low double digits? I mean really low, almost into single digits--why people are frustrated and upset with us? Because we tell them we have made this promise to be fiscally responsible and virtually every bill we bring up here is irresponsible and we waive what we had agreed to do. We can hardly blame them for their skepticism here. Let me talk about this middle-of-the-night stuff. Another problem you have--you go home and what you simply can't explain is the fact that, no, this was not talked about in the Senate; no, this was not talked about in the House; there was no process--yet somebody, as we tried to merge the two bills, in the dark of the night, unnamed, no process, slipped in a provision and there it is. Usually we find out about this later. In this case we had a process. Senator Coats from Indiana worked with Senator Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and worked with another Democrat, the senior Senator from Ohio, to come to an agreement on a provision that impacted our area, the Great Lakes area, in a significant way. That was part of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill. In the dark of the night, during the conference deliberations, another provision was added, not the bipartisan provision by Senators looking out for the economic interests of their State. And by the way, the economic interests of this country--because what was dropped in, in the middle of the night, is something that could potentially cost our Government and therefore cost our taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. We were fortunate enough to have discovered that because bringing those bills to the floor was delayed and we had time to dig into it and all of a sudden find out that this was done. What is egregious here is that this is not a partisan issue. We all know the House is controlled by my party. I don't know who put this in. I don't know exactly the motives as to why they put this in. But here it is, a dark-of-the-night slip it into the bill and overturn something that was processed through the appropriations committee, deliberated, discussed, and voted on. So what are the consequences of all that? What does this have to do with what I am talking about here? It sounds minuscule. We are talking about Asian carp. Why is the Senator from Indiana talking about Asian carp and hundreds and billions of dollars of costs? Let me tell you why. Asian carp is a generic term for four species of nonnative fish: grass, bighead, black, and silverhead carp. These fish were introduced to the United States in the 1970s to assist agricultural interests in the southern States. At some point--probably through flooding--the carp escaped into the Mississippi River system, and they have since spread throughout the whole watershed. They are voracious eaters, which make them beneficial, and we can see why they were imported. They were beneficial for controlled agricultural settings, fish farms, and so forth, but they create serious ecological challenges when competing for food with native species. I agree wholeheartedly that the spread of Asian carp throughout the Mississippi River and potentially into the Great Lakes is a serious and pressing problem, and I am committed to addressing this, as is Senator Durbin and Senator Brown from Ohio. We worked out a compromise agreement in terms of how we should go forward with this. A number of steps have already been taken by the Corps of Engineers. In 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers installed the first of a series of electric barriers along the lower reach of the Chicago area waterway system. In doing so, they believe, to date, they have successfully prevented the migration of carp into the Great Lakes. In 2009, the Corps began DNA testing to detect Asian carp in locations upstream in the barrier system. The testing showed these barriers have been very effective--to use the Corps' words--in preventing Asian carp from entering the waterway. In fact, when the Illinois Department of Natural Resources wanted to check this out, they purposefully dumped a bunch of toxins into the Chicago waterway to discover the extent of the Asian carp infestation. Those toxins killed tens of thousands of fish, but only one Asian carp was found among them. Since that time, the Army Corps has firmly held that the electric barriers are working as designated. Furthermore, in 2010, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources constructed barriers in the watershed. No State has gone further or gone to greater lengths to address this question than my State of Indiana, as well as the State of Illinois, in terms of preventing the introduction of Asian carp in the Great Lakes system. It is economically devastating for us if this happens and it is economically devastating for us and for Illinois if what was proposed in this bill in the dark of the night by the House of Representatives goes forward. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is undergoing an extensive study. Despite all the attempts to take these steps, which so far have proven to be successful, this provision that was incorporated in there could result in the closing of the locks of this waterway system, and it would endanger about $14 billion per year of economic activity and over 100,000 jobs in this area that I described that rely on the Chicago area waterway system. Closing the locks also may cost up to an additional $100 billion because it would require completely overhauling Chicago's underground water and sewage system. Closing the locks would also render worthless the billions of dollars that have already been invested to complete the Corps of Engineers flood control projects along the entire Mississippi watershed, and they may not even solve the problem. While the Chicago waterway system is the only direct continuous connection between the Great Lakes system, other potential pathways could allow carp immigration in times of flooding. So while it is clear that closing the Chicago locks is not an economically viable solution for stopping Asian carp--and I do understand the concerns the Great Lakes States have on this issue and I share those concerns--as a result of all that, we worked out a bipartisan compromise solution to addressing this area. We would allow a study to go forward, allow an economic assessment of the various options that had been presented, and then give Congress the information so it can make a decision as to which solution was best needed to go forward. What this provision does in this bill is simply give the agency responsible the authority to go ahead with the project and what they think the solution is without Congress having anything to say about it whatsoever. It is a preauthorization on a new project which could include closing of the locks, and if it does, it would have hundreds of billions of dollars of financial implications for the taxpayers and for this Congress but also have enormous negative economic impact on northwest Indiana, northeast Illinois and the entire Chicago region and all that commerce that flows up and down the Mississippi and up and down the St. Lawrence Seaway. The other problem with this is the new language also expedites the study, even though the Corps says they need more time to do so. I guess, in conclusion, there are two things: One is the egregious procedures that continue to give the public such a negative slant on how we do business--this bundling of bills, where we are forced to vote yes or no on the whole bundling, up or down, and we can't let our yes stand for one purposeful interest or another or a no stand due to bundling; second, we need to address these midnight procedures, this issue of ``slip it in there,'' without going through the regular process. This body of Congress, both the House and the Senate, need to return to regular process, where we bring an idea forward, it is worked through the committee, it is transparent to all who are looking at it, we give our yea or nay, and we move it through the system, rather than simply changing things in the dark of the night at the last minute, where we have no opportunity to amend it and no opportunity to address it. As we go forward with this, I am going to object on the basis of rule XXVIII. I don't know how it will all turn out, but I hope my colleagues will understand this is more than something that just affects Indiana, Illinois, and the Great Lakes. This is something that affects the way we do business here. If we cannot enforce these rules, we will continue to follow these practices the American people have come to absolutely hate and think they have a dysfunctional Congress. We deserve better than this. I hope my colleagues will agree with that. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the Supreme Court ruling on health care. Obviously, we were all glued to the television set this morning and watched this historic and momentous decision. I was deeply disappointed with the ruling. I respect the Court and its work, but I was disappointed that the Court failed to strike down this law as many anticipated they would. I was disappointed because I believe the law has been deeply and fatally flawed from the very beginning. It became a major issue, of course, in the 2010 election as people watched this massive bill that impacts every American get passed without bipartisan support. The procedures were worked around and violated in order to pass--even though it was against the will of the majority of the American people. This was a 2,700-page monstrosity so infamously described by the then-Speaker of the House as something we have to pass first so you can find out what's in it. Well, we found out what's in it. We have had 2 years to examine this and we have seen parts of it being played out, with more to come. I think what we have learned is this bill is fatally flawed and it ought to be repealed. It doesn't mean we don't have health care issues we should deal with, but we need to deal with it in a bipartisan way that can be better explained to the American people and that is affordable. It is labeled the Affordable Care Act, but it is anything but affordable. In a time of deep recession and over a period of the last 2 or 3 years of a stagnant economy, this law adds a burden of regulation and taxation that is working against our ability to come out of this deep hole of economic distress. Americans found out what was in this bill, and I think it reaffirmed many of their deep concerns about going forward with a plan that tries to wrap up the entire U.S. health care system in one big ball--2,700 pages worth. It reaffirms the people's concerns with federal rules and regulations and taxes and mandates. The American people are saying that this is not how we want reform of our health care system. We want to make it more affordable and more accessible, but letting Washington essentially decide how to go forward without giving flexibility to the States and flexibility to the private sector to initiate reforms clearly is not what the American people--or at least the majority of the American people--were wanting. Despite the promises that were made about the impact of this bill by those who authored it and by the President, middle-class Americans have found that the health care law is a massive tax. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that today. This is not just a penalty; this is a massive tax on working Americans--and not just the rich. It is a tax on the middle class and it is a tax on every American taxpayer, even though the President has insisted, now famously, on YouTube and every news station, that this was not a tax on the middle class or a tax on any Americans. Families have found out their insurance premiums are going up, not down, as was promised by those who supported this bill and authored this bill. Seniors have found out they may not be able to keep the insurance plan they have and could lose access to Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a program many seniors have enrolled in and found to be successful in addressing their health care needs at a reasonable cost. Business owners found out they would be fined $2,000 per employee if they failed to provide workers with a health care insurance plan approved by Uncle Sam. I don't know how many business owners I have talked to in Indiana over the past couple of years who have said they have sat down with their employees and discussed with them how much they are able to provide in health care coverage without cutting jobs and without sinking the company. Many companies have worked out different types of agreements with employees and various types of plans based on their ability to provide that kind of coverage acceptable by both the employees and the owners of the business. Now all of these agreements are wiped out because it is determined that Washington will decide what the minimum level of the plan should be. Several business owners have told me they simply can't run their business in this economy on the low margins, if any margins they are achieving, and provide that kind of increase in insurance or opt out of it and pay a fine of $2,000 per employee. For those businesses with under 50 employees, there is an exemption. Other businesses have said: Guess what. I have 47 employees. Does anyone think I am going to hire over 50? No way. No way am I going to push myself into a category where I have to pay a fine of $2,000 per employee if I don't comply with the health care mandates out of Washington, DC. So what we see is a lot of payment of overtime for existing workers but we don't see hiring. We don't see the expansion of hiring, particularly in small business, because of the so-called Affordable Care Act. I have spoken to patients and doctors all over the State of Indiana, including health care providers, insurance companies, hospital administrators, doctors who are part of a group and those individuals who are in a private practice, and all of the other entities that are engaged in health care. They all have major concerns with this law and to a group, they have opposed this Affordable Health Care Act, or so it is described. We have a dynamic medical device industry in Indiana, as we do in several States across this country. It is one of the cutting-edge, leading industries in terms of our ability to provide new and innovative products to make people's lives healthier and safer and to prevent a number of unintended consequences from various medical procedures. They learned after reading this act that they were going to be subject to a 2.3-percent tax levied on their gross receipts because they were a pay-for for this bill. These companies that make pacemakers, artificial joints, and surgical tools find that this tax is something that drives them to the point where they need to think about transferring their business overseas, or part of their business overseas, or not hire the workers they wish to hire. This is a tax imposed on one of our dynamic and innovative industries that is leading in our exports. This industry may no longer be able to compete under this tax. Just because this ruling that came down today saying the health care law is constitutional does not mean it is the right policy for us to go forward. The law remains unpopular and unaffordable. I wish to state here today that I am committed to working with my colleagues to repeal the health care law and give our citizens the power and the flexibility to make their own decisions relative to their health care and to use those innovative ideas that are out there to put a much better package together that addresses the real question of rising health care costs and access. I have traveled our State and listened to all of these providers and I have asked them this question: If the health care law is struck down by the Supreme Court, what would you propose? Because we still have a problem here. We have rising health care costs that have to be contained, we have an access problem, and we have a number of other problems in terms of gaining access to coverage and payment for health care issues. What would you propose? I have a long list of answers. I have talked about it here on the floor. I talked about it during the campaign. All across my State I have talked about the things I have learned from listening to the people who are on the frontline doing this business every day. There are all kinds of innovative solutions out there. There are all kinds of things we ought to be looking at. I know all of us who support the repeal of the current law are committed to bringing forward sensible, affordable, cost-effective, quality- effective solutions to our health care issues. What the Supreme Court essentially has done is say that this issue is for Congress. Congress represents the people. We need to be representative of the people. So what we need to do now is listen to the people. It is the people who will decide the future of health care for this country. I believe it is the people who will decide in this coming election. It is the people who will decide whether they want evermore Washington--evermore taxing and spending, evermore debt, evermore Federal mandates and regulations--or whether they want to approach this in a different way that can reduce spending, empower individuals, give States greater flexibility, and bring forward sensible, step-by-step, incremental, affordable, tested, proven ways of addressing our rising health care costs. So the Supreme Court has turned it back to Congress. It is our responsibility now to go forward and represent all those who were not listened to when this bill was run through this Congress in a way that violated a lot of our procedures and in a way that I believe went against the majority will of the American people. Here we are, and now it is back on us, and we now need to stand up and take responsibility. Those who voted for it will be defending it, of course. Those who voted against it--or those of us who were here, partly because it was an issue in the 2010 campaign--are here to not just simply say we don't like what is there but to offer also positive solutions to the problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of national security leaks. A few weeks ago, the world learned that U.S. intelligence agencies and partners disrupted an al-Qaida plot to blow up a civilian aircraft. We are all very familiar with the success of this effort, and we applaud those involved in preventing a truly horrific terrorist attack. However, my concern today, and has been since that time, is that the public has become too familiar with this successful operation. Specifically, due to an intelligence leak, the world learned of highly sensitive information, sources, and methods that enabled the United States and its allies to prevent al-Qaida from striking again. This irresponsible leak jeopardizes future operations and future cooperation with valuable sources and intelligence partners overseas. The release of this information--intentional or not--puts American lives at risk as well as the lives of those who helped us in this operation. Unfortunately, this is not the only recent leak to occur. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply concerned about a troubling rash of leaks exposing classified intelligence information that has come out in the last several weeks. This paints a disturbing picture of this administration's judgment when it comes to national security. There is a questionable collaboration with Hollywood, whereby the Obama administration decided to give unprecedented access to filmmakers producing a movie on the bin Laden raid--including the confidential identity of one of our Nation's most elite warriors. Discussions with reporters in the aftermath of the raid also may have revealed the involvement of a Pakistani doctor, who was sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason after playing a critical role in the hunt for bin Laden. The pages of our newspapers have highly classified information publicized pertaining to intelligence operations in Yemen and Iran-- currently, the two most concerning foreign policy challenges this Nation faces. This is in addition to the frequency with which top administration officials now openly discuss the once highly classified execution of drone strikes. All too frequently we read in these publications that ``highly placed administration officials'' are the source of confirmation of previously classified information. Sadly, these incidents are not the first time this Nation's secrets have spilled onto the streets or in the book stores. The problem stems in part from the media's insatiable desire for information that makes intelligence operations look a lot like something out of a Hollywood script. This media hunger is fed by inexcusable contributions from current and former government officials. Mr. President, I want to repeat that last statement. This media hunger to publish classified information comes from the inexcusable contributions of current and former government officials. We now know that investigations by the FBI, CIA, and now two prosecutors are underway, but more must be done to prevent intelligence disclosures from occurring in the first place. The question of whether the White House purposely leaked classified information, as the President refutes, is not my main point. Whether it was intentional has little bearing on the results. Highly classified information still got out, and it appears to have been enabled by interviews with senior administration officials. At this time, I take the President at his word that the White House did not purposely leak classified information. But what about his administration leaking it accidentally or what about mistakenly or--and this is perhaps the best adjective that might apply--what about stupidly? There remain a lot of unanswered questions about the White House's judgment and whether the actions by this administration, intentional or not, enabled highly sensitive information to become public. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are working together in a nonpartisan fashion--let me emphasize that we are working together in a nonpartisan fashion--to address this issue. As a member of the committee, I am working with my colleagues to evaluate a range of reforms to reduce or hopefully eliminate the opportunity for future leaks. I wish to commend Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Chambliss for their efforts and genuine interest in moving forward with this, and I thank them for their leadership on this matter. Our committee, working across the Capitol with the House Intelligence Committee, will bring forward recommendations, including legislation, to address this growing problem. As the Department of Justice conducts its investigations, we cannot lose sight of important questions that must be answered, such as but not limited to the following: Question No. 1: Why did the White House hold a conference call on May 7 with a collection of former national security officials, some of whom are talking heads on network television, to discuss the confidential operation to disrupt the al-Qaida bomb plot? Question No. 2: Why is the White House cooperating so candidly with Hollywood filmmakers on a movie about the Osama bin Laden raid, one of the most highly secretive operations in the history of this country? While we don't know the date of the public release of this Hollywood production, we can be sure that any release prior to the November Presidential election will fuel a firestorm of accusations of political motives. Question No. 3: Why would the confidential identity of elite U.S. military personnel be released to Hollywood filmmakers? Question No. 4: Why would administration officials even talk to reporters or authors writing books or articles about incredibly sensitive operations? Question No. 5: Did any administration officials--in the White House or not--authorize the disclosure of classified information? These are just some of the key questions that must be asked in this investigation. There also remain several questions surrounding the current investigations. The appointment of two prosecutors to lead criminal investigations into the recent leaks is a step forward, but the scope remains unclear, as well as the question of whether we should insist on a special counsel given the current concerns about the credibility of the Justice Department. Will these investigations focus just on the Yemen and Iran issue or will the leaks involving drone strikes and other leaks that have occurred in the past months also be a target of the investigation? Will White House officials be interviewed as part of this investigation? Which officials will or will not be available to take part in the investigation? Will those who are former or no longer a part of the administration or the Federal Government or those outside it, including those reporters in question, be a part of this investigation? Will e-mails or phone calls of administration officials be analyzed to identify who spoke with the reporters and authors in question and when? Again, whether these officials are intentionally leaking classified information is not the main point. If they put themselves in situations where they are discussing or confirming classified information, they must also be held accountable. Public pressure is required to shape these investigations and to ensure all our questions about these events are answered, which is why I am speaking here today. Every day, we have men and women in uniform serving around the globe to protect and defend this great country, and every day we have intelligence professionals and national security officers working behind the scenes with allies and potential informants to prevent attacks on our country. These leaks undermine all that hard work and all those countless sacrifices. Additionally, it risks lives and the success of future operations. Not only must we plug these damaging and irresponsible leaks, we also must work to do all we can to eliminate or greatly reduce the opportunity for them to occur in the future. Criminal prosecution and congressional action is not the only solution. We also need public accountability. Administration officials continue to speak off the record with reporters and authors about classified information even after these recent disclosures. It is a practice that contributes to unwise and harmful consequences. Purposely or accidentally, loose lips can bring about disastrous results. Perhaps the best advice is the saying: ``You don't have to explain what you don't say'' or maybe it is even simpler than that. Maybe the best advice for those who are privy to confidential information is what former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, and I paraphrase: Just shut the heck up. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I associate myself with those last two remarks. I would have also voted no. I wish we had had a recorded vote. I wasn't able to understand even what the majority leader was saying, it was spoken so softly, but had we had a recorded vote, I would have been listed as no.

Mr. COATS

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