Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the holiday season is coming upon us, a period of celebration and joy. But as we prepare to spend time with our friends and our families in the coming weeks, it is important to remember during this holiday season there are many families out there across this country who are hurting. As I visit with Hoosiers, I hear concern in the voices of parents trying to make their mortgage payment, the manufacturer trying to find work, and a business owner trying to make payroll. Too many Hoosier families have a parent unemployed or underemployed, some working two or three jobs just to scrape by. For nearly 3 years we have been hearing the President talk about how this Nation needs good-paying jobs for people. The President has spoken on this on numerous occasions. In his inaugural address in 2009, he said: There is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. More than a year later in June 2010, the President said: ``Our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American.'' Two months ago, the President said: ``Everywhere I go, they tell me they want action on jobs.'' Despite the rhetoric, what we have and what we are dealing with is a series of regulations and policies coming out of the White House that are denying Americans the opportunity to have jobs and preventing job creators from hiring. This is a result of regulations that are hampering businesses as well as policies here that we have or have not enacted that would encourage job growth and economic opportunities. For nearly 34 consecutive months unemployment has been hovering around the 9-percent level although we all know the real unemployment number is much higher than that. There are people who have given up looking and they're no longer counted. There are people who are working at pay levels and talent levels far below their abilities. And so the underemployment number, combined with the unemployment number, is very significant and much higher than the official number reflects. For months I have been on this floor talking about a whole number of initiatives I thought was necessary to spur our economy and get us moving forward again. Comprehensive tax reform is something Senator Wyden and I have engaged in on a bipartisan basis and we've been talking about it all year, yet here we are at the end of the session and we are not going to be able to accomplish that this year. We'll give it a run next year, and hopefully we can make some progress on that. There is almost a unanimous consensus that comprehensive tax reform needs to take place. Yet we have now spent a year talking about it but not doing it. We also know that issues such as entitlement reform and reducing the out-of-control spending here are necessary to put us on more solid footing, and despite the valiant efforts and hard work of many in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, we've been unable to accomplish and succeed. Much of this difficulty, frankly, has been because the White House refusing to demonstrate leadership. The President has not stepped up and engaged in fulfilling the very things he said are the most important things we need to do. Let me cite two examples. The first one is still under discussion and, hopefully, will be part of what we are able to accomplish before we finish here either late this weekend or into next week, and that is the Keystone XL Pipeline. By delaying a decision for a year, the President essentially is saying we are denying 20,000 or more individuals from gaining work. The president is blocking jobs and preventing Americans from building this much-needed pipeline which is so important for the future of this country. We talk about our dependence on Middle East oil and the blood and treasure we have had to spend to keep those sea lanes open and that oil flowing to the United States, and yet the President denies us the opportunity to mine our own domestic energy sources and to use sources that come from Canada or off our shores. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a project that if constructed will bring a minimum of about 750 million barrels of oil to this country for refining purposes. It will provide an estimated 20,000 new jobs directly and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in coming years indirectly. My State alone, Indiana, has indicated that at least 100 Indiana companies would benefit from the pipeline. This project has bipartisan support as well. Twenty-two House Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama and said that it is in our national interests to have a Presidential permit issued for Keystone as soon as possible. That's supported by Republicans, but the President has said that if we send him a yearend bill that includes this, he plans to veto it. It makes no sense what- so-ever. It is irrational--to say that the No. 1 priority for this country is to get people back to work and to provide jobs, and here we have a ready-made job creator that is being postponed to pacify some extreme environmentalists who don't want one drop of oil or one piece of coal mined in this country or used in this country to provide energy resources. They think all we need to do is switch to electric--which, by the way, is only produced through burning coal and oil--to provide electricity to plug in our cars and make them work or they want wind and solar. Well, if we look outside the window here in Washington and across most of the country the last few days you are going to see a lot of clouds and very little sun. And you are not going to see much wind. We cannot run factories, we cannot run businesses, we can't even light this Senate based solely on this alternative energy as it currently exists, and it is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. The Keystone XL Pipeline also has the support of labor groups and unions. These are the entities that will be providing jobs for the project. Mark Ayers of the AFL-CIO wrote: For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: Jobs . . . Throughout America's heartland, the Keystone Pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs, and as many as 500,000 indirect jobs via a strong economic multiplier effect . . . without one single dollar of government assistance. That is right. This is totally paid for by the private sector. We can provide 20,000 jobs immediately without taxpayer dollars. That is why this is supported by Republicans, supported by Democrats, supported by Unions, supported by right-to-work States, supported across the board by those who feel we need more energy independence. Yet, after assuring us that his top priority is creating jobs, the President says, no. Instead, he chooses to yield to some extreme voices on the environmental left who basically say, no more oil, no more pipelines, no more coal, fossil fuels are out. It is wind, solar, batteries, or nothing--despite how many jobs it costs. So I am asking the President of the United States to reconsider his decision especially at a time when people are struggling in this country. The commonsense solution to one of our problems is right here before us. Yet we hear from the President, no, he is going to postpone the decision for a year to get past the 2012 election. This is political decision is denying a lot of people work at a time when it is desperately needed. At the same time the President is asking the Congress to extend unemployment benefits, primarily because of his own failed economic policies, the White House is blocking this incredible job creating opportunity. Another immediate action the administration can take would be to accept a modest provision to provide a reasonable delay on two costly Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will deal another devastating blow to our already fragile economy. In the next few days, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize a rule that could threaten over 20 percent of the coal-fired powerplant generation in the Midwest and in the Southeast. We've now learned it also has a dramatic adverse effect on powerplants in the States of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. So a major part of our country will be affected by this rule. Known as Utility MACT, this regulation will force most of our country's 1,100 coal-fired plants to retrofit their facilities or close their doors. The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy reported that closures of U.S. coal-fired powerplants will accelerate sharply during the next 10 years because of this utility rule. The EPA's expected announcement on the utility rule comes just after they issued another major rule that will cost additional American jobs because starting on January 1 the EPA will begin requiring utilities to reduce powerplant emissions that may cause air quality complications in neighboring States. That regulation, called the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, is also one of the most expensive policies ever imposed on coal-fired plants. Under this rule, the EPA will require plants to install costly control technologies in exchange for minimal environmental gains. The combined economic impact of the two regulations I have just mentioned is alarming. The Indiana Energy Association estimates that the cost of these rules will be between $6.5 billion and $7.3 billion just in my home State of Indiana. And when we add the entire eastern half of the country, from Mississippi River on to the Atlantic Ocean, that number goes up exponentially. The National Economic Research Associates estimates employment losses of 1.4 million across the country as a result of the current EPA rules and deadlines. By 2016, NERA reports that American ratepayers will see an average increase of up to 23.5 percent--and in some places rates will be even higher. Now, I want to say this: Cleaning our air is a worthy goal. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent under the Clean Air Act, which I supported in the 1980s and early 1990s because, as Americans, we all want to clean our air. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by our utilities on clean air, consumers have been paying for it through our electricity bills to clean the air. The progress we have made has been astounding. Provisions that were offered in a bill Senator Joe Manchin--a Democrat from West Virginia--and I offered together on a bipartisan basis do not turn back or unwind the progress we have made. They simply extend the compliance date for a 3-year period of time and coordinate that compliance date so that utilities can accomplish both of these goals laid out by the EPA in a reasonable time frame. This rule will take effect on January 1 of 2012. So we're asking for a little more time. Earlier this year I voted to eliminate these rules. That vote, led by Senator Rand Paul, was defeated. So we move now to the next stage which is to give utilities more time to meet EPA deadlines. I urge the President to consider the Manchin-Coats legislation called the Fair Compliance Act, which is bipartisan legislation to delay the implementation of these harmful EPA rules. Otherwise, our utilities will not have the time needed to adequately prepare. The EPA will be shutting them down. Without extra compliance time, there are predictions of blackouts or rolling blackouts and substantial increases in utility rates at a time when the economy is struggling and our manufacturers need every competitive advantage they can get in order to compete around the world and get people back to work. Having said that, let me just say one more thing. It is disappointing from my perspective in the lack of progress in addressing our dire fiscal situation. We've tried just about everything and every process and every procedure people can think up, and each one of those has achieved either minimal results or failed completely. So after evaluating and looking at the extraordinary effort, energy and time put into the process this year, there have been very few results. It has become clear to me and reaffirmed something I believed from day one when I first got into politics--that unless we put in place a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will require Members to come down to this well and, before the President of the Senate, put their left hand on the Bible and their right hand in the air and swear to uphold a Constitution that incorporates a balanced budget requirement, we are never going to get there. There is always a reason why something statutorily--all the efforts of the Gang of 6, the committee of 12; the rush to prevent crises by raising the debt limit; the cliff hangers: are we going to pass this or not, and are we going to extend the debt limit or not extend it--all the provisions through the appropriations process to cut spending and reduce government involvement and so forth have essentially failed. What we need to do is what most States in this country do, what every business has to do, what every family has to do; that is, commit to balancing our budget, not spending more than we take in, and having a sworn, constitutional agreement that this is what we will do before we adjourn during every session. My State of Indiana has to do this, and many States across the country have to do this. They do because it produces transparency and honesty and Members going before their constituents and saying: That program is a great idea, but we can't afford it. Unless you're willing to support Congress raising your taxes or cuts in other places, we can't put that new program in place. I think my time is running out. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes, and I will wrap it up.

Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues. If we don't have this ultimate enforcement mechanism, I fear we will just continue to do what we have been doing for years and years and years; that is, falling far short of where we need to go. I think where most of us know we need to make the tough decisions, to be honest with our constituents, to go forward and basically say this is what our sworn obligation is, and we are going to have to fulfill this obligation. Nothing else has succeeded in forcing this body to come together and in a bipartisan way--or even on a partisan basis--do what is necessary to get our fiscal house in order. During this holiday season, the people who are without work and struggling to pay their mortgages or struggling to save money so their kids can go to school, struggling to pay bills, wondering what the future is going to hold, those working two or three jobs, they are all out there saying we have to get this together, we have to get this country moving again. We cannot do that if we are plunging into debt or the policies coming out of this administration are denying our citizens the right to work in jobs that are available, such as the Keystone Pipeline. I can't even pay the utility cost now they say and if you are going to raise my rates 20 to 30 percent because of these regulations it is not going to be the kind of joyful, happy celebration at Christmas we would all wish for all our families across America. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. All right. Mr. President, I do not think I will use all of those 20 minutes. I might ask for 10 additional minutes. I will use the 10 minutes, but I may need to ask for some additional time if it works out and others are not waiting.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 20 minutes of time allotted under morning business.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor deeply disappointed-- like many--over our failure to seize a unique opportunity to put America on a more fiscally sane path for the future. My No. 1 priority for this year--I have talked about it so many times, not only publicly but with colleagues in discussions for nearly a year--that No. 1 priority has been to advocate for a deficit reduction package that would be deemed credible by the financial markets and would put us on a path to fiscal stability. I think, given the situation that exists around the world today, nothing could have been more impactful in a positive way producing such a package. Financial experts agree--and they have now for years--that we are on the wrong path, that we are spending far too much in relationship to our anemic growth and GDP, and that we have staggered along for 3 years but continued to spend an extraordinary amount of money without seeing the economy recover. A number of plans have come forward. One year ago today, Simpson- Bowles produced one of those types of bold plans that could help get us back on this fiscal path to prosperity. As you know, Mr. Bowles was the Chief of Staff to our former President Bill Clinton. He and our former colleague Alan Simpson put together a package that--whether you agreed with all of it or not, certainly was something that could have put us on a more fiscally sound path. Yet those recommendations were rejected out of hand by the White House and others. We have seen the activities and presentations of the Gang of 6. Forty-plus Senators, including me, came together in a bipartisan way to urge the President to join us in pushing for a bold, comprehensive plan. That was rejected. Earlier in the year, the President's budget was laughed out of this Chamber. Not one person--either Democrat or Republican--voted for it. Then in August we came far shot short of what we needed to do to address our debt crisis when Congress passed the Budget Control Act. I was not able to support that particular plan. Although it averted a default on our debt, it fell woefully short of what was needed to address our fiscal situation. Nevertheless, that opportunity--which we had with the involvement of both parties to do something truly significant--was passed over. So then it fell to the committee of 12, which is called the supercommittee. Many of us--offered suggestions and urged those members to try and go beyond the minimum of $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction over a 10-year period of time. There was a so-called Draconian sequester, or across-the-board cut, that would go into place automatically, starting in 2013, if the committee could not come to an agreement. The consensus at the time was these cuts would be so Draconian that it would force an agreement among Republicans and Democrats--to come forward with at least a minimal plan. Many of us were urging them to do much more, to bring forth something that would be credible with the investment community and restore confidence that America understood the dire situation we were in and we were doing something about it as representatives of the people. No clearer message came to this body than the message sent in November of 2010 with the historic turnover of Members and an outpouring of support for putting the future of our country, our fiscal future and economic future and the future of our children and grandchildren ahead of politics. Yet it is politics that defeated the effort. Now, it is easy to blame the committee of 12. I know there was an earnest attempt to come together. I believe, politically, perhaps, it was doomed from the start just by the way it was designed. That is one of the reasons I voted against that proposal. Nevertheless, they made an earnest attempt but, unfortunately, were not able to bring it home. So the responsibility falls not just on those 12, but it falls on this entire Congress because we would not even have gotten to that supercommitteen if we had done our job earlier and presented a real plan in August, when we were bumping up against the debt limit extension. That's when we should have done what most of us intuitively understand needs to be done. Yet the political considerations and ramifications were such that we came forward with a very timid and woefully short plan of what we needed to do. The President has to take some responsibility. We cannot really bring forward a bold change in the way the U.S. Government does business unless we have bipartisan support. We cannot get that bipartisan support unless the Chief Executive, the quarterback of the team, stands up and says: I want to be involved and engaged and stay engaged. While there was some rhetoric coming out of the White House, there was no plan. As I said, the only plan we have had from the President--his budget plan--was rejected earlier this year on a unanimous vote, every Republican and every Democrat turned it down. The President has said some nice words about what we needed to do and so forth and so on. But he was AWOL. As I said, the quarterback of the team needs to be engaged. He is the key person. Yet that quarterback was not even on the field. So responsibility falls on both Congress and the White House. I think some responsibility also falls on outside groups who distorted what we were trying to do, who mischaracterized what Republicans were seeking to accomplish, and there was some mischaracterization of what Democrats were seeking to accomplish as well. But it was an undermining process. Those groups that supposedly are representative of seniors across this country, the shameful way in which they distorted the message and what we were trying to do--and, obviously, it had a political impact here and put restraint on Members because their base was being lied to in terms of what was under consideration and what we were trying to do. We all know Social Security and Medicare are not going to have the funds available in the future to provide the services that were promised to the American people. Yet any attempt to try to salvage and save and retain those programs' solvency was distorted by these groups that supposedly represent the interests of our seniors. Many of these groups falsely claimed that we were trying to take away their program, we were trying to destroy their program. I mean, how ridiculous it is that someone is going to come in here and say: My goal is to destroy retirement benefits for the American people or I am here to take away health benefits for American retirees. None of us are here to do that. These programs are law. They are in place. We want them to be more efficient, more effective, but, more importantly, we want them to remain solvent. Yet outside groups were basically sending just the opposite messages. So the Congress failed. We came up short. But having done so, Congress cannot avoid the responsibility we have to do everything in our power to try to address a very serious fiscal problem that exists in this country. Years and years, decades and decades, not only this Congress but former Congresses, not only this President but former Presidents have made promises to the American people that we now are unable to keep because we do not have the fiscal capability of doing so. We have not had a budget come out of the Congress in more than 1,000 days. There is some indication that we will have a budget next year. I sincerely hope we can get together and come forward with a deficit reduction budget, one that recognizes the fiscal plight in which we find ourselves. I will work with both sides of the aisle to try to accomplish that. We have to acknowledge that we continue to spend trillions more dollars than we have available to us. No nation can sustain that. All we have to do is look across the Atlantic at what is taking place in Europe from country to country. It is not just Greece, it is not just Portugal, it is not just Ireland anymore. It is Italy and maybe France and maybe other countries. The European Union is struggling to try to address this serious debit crisis, the same type of problem we have here. There have been many here that look at Europe and say: They need to get their act together. Well, we need to get our act together here because what we are seeing there may be coming across the shore. Certainly, similar problems exist: promising more than we can deliver, borrowing more so that we can pay debts that we do not have the money to pay through the revenues we generate in our country. The same thing is happening here. This is the challenge in front of us. We need to find a way to seize this opportunity to do something for the future of this country. Our generation must step up for the next generations and for the sake of the country's future. We need to continue this debate and go forward. It is easy to sit around and grumble and blame somebody else and say, well, we gave it our best shot and therefore we will just let whatever happens happen. We do not want to do that because what will happen here, if we continue on the current course, is what is happening in Europe today. There is no clearer picture of the consequences of a sovereign nation promising more and spending more than it takes in over time. It slows the economy. It piles up the interest payments. It shrinks the amount of money available for essential services. It puts the programs that were in place in real jeopardy. So if we consider the consequences, we clearly have to answer the question: Where do we go from here? How do we go forward in a constructive way? I would suggest a few things: First, we need to enforce the law that is there under the Budget Control Act. The law that is in place on the books now, even though I believe that law designed a process that is woefully short of where we need to go, but we need to enforce it now. No one wanted to get to this across-the-board cutting, this sequester that impacts our national security and other functions of government. But that sequester was supposed to prevent us from failing and urge us to come to agreement. It did not. The sequestration rule now is the law, and I think an attempt to undo that is one of the most cynical things we can do, and the American people know it. I do not believe they will allow us to do it. So the law needs to be enforced if we cannot come up with the minimum amount of cuts required. We need to go forward and do that. So there are a number of ways--and I commend the committee for at least trying to come up with some efficiencies and effectiveness rein in our Federal spending. I believe they have a list of things that we can look to in order to enforce more cuts. I have suggested a triage process when we review every aspect of an agency of government, every function that is performed through this Federal Government, and basically say: We have a patient that is sick, a patient with a potentially terminal disease. But we need to triage. We have a bunch of people in the waiting room. Some of them need attention right away. So we need a triage of every agency, every function, every expenditure being examined from the standpoint of, is this absolutely essential to the future of this country, to the protection of our citizens? Is this an absolutely essential function of government that cannot be done at the State level, at the local level, or at the private level? If so, then that needs to have priority. Secondly, there is a whole range of issues. We come down every day with new ideas and thoughts of ``this would be nice to do, but we cannot afford to do.'' We have to delay these initiatives those or just simply say to people: I am sorry, we do not have the money to pay for this idea. So we separate the essential from ``like to do and cannot do,'' and then we look at what needs to be done that someone else can do better. Whether in the private sector, at the State level, or at the local level, there are a whole range of areas where the Federal Government has gotten in way over its head. These are functions that can take place in the private sector or through State and local governments. We can look at the duplication and inefficiencies that exist. Senator Coburn came up with a long list, trillions of dollars in expenditures that could be saved. We ought to look at that. We ought to look at those and decide which ones we want to go forward with and how we can start that process. Let me mention a couple of things: 18 separate domestic food assistance programs. Do we need domestic assistance for food? Probably there are some areas where we do. Do we need 18 separate programs dolling this out? There are 47 different job training programs. OK. The economy is restructuring. We need job training. Do we need 47 separate programs to do that? And my personal favorite: 56 financial literacy programs. We can argue that the Federal Government is in no place to teach the American people how to be financially literate. I think what we need to do is be financially literate here in Washington and then use that model to show people how to be literate rather than simply say, well, we have the answer. We, obviously, do not have the answer. Why we have 56 financial literacy programs in place through the Federal Government is just astounding. So these are suggestions. There are many others regarding cutting of spending. But there are other functions that need to be addressed. There are three major categories. One is regulatory reform. Regulation from various agencies is costing the American taxpayer and Americans millions and billions of dollars. There is a process underway to look at those. That is one category. I can talk for a long time about that, but I will not. A second one is entitlement reform. Now, I have been talking about this subject from the beginning. This is the engine that drives the train of deficits, and we can stand by and continue to lie to the American people and say they have nothing to worry about. We can say we are going to preserve every penny of the Social Security and every penny of the Medicare and Medicaid, and it will always be there. Do not worry. Even the money put in via payroll taxes and so forth, it is all sacrosanct, and do not worry about it. We can continue that lie or we can tell the American people the truth; that is, if we want to keep these programs viable, we need to take structured reform measures now. Those could be increasing the age of eligibility for Medicare to coincide with the current Social Security age. It could be changes in some of the indexes that are used to calculate the cost-of-living adjustment. That could be modified through means testing. Warren Buffett says he does not need Social Security. Fine. If people do not need Social Security or Medicare or at least the full payment, let's give them back what they paid in. So we could put means testing in there. We need to debate and talk about this issue. Is it politically sensitive? Sure. But let's be honest with the American people. They want us to be honest. I think that is what the message of 2010 was all about. The third category, one in which I have been very involved in, is reforming our Tax Code, which is a mess. The tax code is totally incomprehensible to anybody who spends less than 15 hours a day as a career studying it and trying to figure it out. Our tax code is a nightmare. Americans spend billions of dollars having people do their taxes because the tax code is too complex to understand. There are tens of thousands of pages in the Tax Code. There is a growing bipartisan consensus here in Congress that we need to reform our Tax Code. Senator Wyden and I have a bipartisan bill that has been worked on for 3 years to reform the tax code. Our plan is not the absolute answer to everything, but it is the only bipartisan bill in legislative text, it has been scored, and it is available to be debated. I know the supercommittee looked at our proposal. The Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee ought to look at it as well. Tax reform can, make this country more competitive, grow economy, and help with our fiscal situation. I sense that I am close to or running out of time. In deference to my colleagues, I will wrap up. I came here deeply disappointed today. I remain disappointed that we haven't been able to do more. My No. 1 priority has been to advocate for going big on a deficit reduction plan. We weren't able to do that. Experts agree that we must do more. We only have to look at Europe to see what is coming next. Let's try to avoid that. There are plans out there we can build off of right now. So instead of just folding our tent and saying there is nothing we can do except wait for the election results of 2012 when we may have a different President or a different Congress, we have a responsibility to act now. There are ways we can do this. We need to demonstrate to ourselves and to the American people that we will accept this responsibility. I choose to do that. I choose to take the tough medicine for the future of the country. I believe the American people choose to do that as well. I urge my colleagues to join me as we move forward. Let's not sit and wait for election results. Let's do something now because the urgency and the crisis is real, and it needs to be addressed now. Let's be responsible and step up and do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we have been seized with obviously pressing issues and emergencies, and I fear we have not been paying enough attention to the issue of Iran and the growing nuclear threat posed by that country. The recent release of the report by the International Atomic Energy Commission has returned the Iran nuclear issue to the front pages and, hopefully, to the top of our list of priority issues that need to be discussed and need to be evaluated. The IAEA nuclear watchdog, which I visited last March with a group of Members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, has never been an instrument of U.S. policy. In fact, it has often offered perspectives contrary to America's views or preferences and has rigorously defended its objectivity independent of individual governments. Therefore, I think this latest report has all the more weight that we should give serious consideration to. This objective organization of nuclear experts has had unrivaled access to information and sources within Iran. It has stripped away the veneer of ambiguity and uncertainty about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is after the bomb, and we all know it. We can see the proof in this IAEA report, including compelling detail about Iran amassing fissile material, designing explosive trigger devices, and developing delivery systems. The report details the way in which Iran has relentlessly pursued this objective over the years and from whom it has obtained assistance. The report also shows our own intelligence community's official estimate in 2007 that Iran had suspended these activities in 2003 was wrong. The activities to design nuclear weapons soon resumed and are continuing. Ironically, it seems efforts to slow down or halt nuclear weapons development through sanctions or even through computer viruses have only had minimal or temporary effect. Many have been unwisely comforted by such delays and, therefore, have been less focused and less determined to find real solutions to this mortal security threat. Also, we have been mistakenly reassured by the contention that Iran has not yet made the political decision to actually assemble nuclear weapons. This could potentially be one of the most dangerous conclusions of all. As I have repeatedly said from this floor and during my tenure at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nuclear weapons- capable Iran is nearly as dangerous as a nuclear-armed Iran. An Iran that has spent years secretly pursuing--and now we know successfully-- the technologies, the expertise, and materials required to create nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States and to the world. Facing this imminent danger now, with ample verification from the IAEA that our anxieties are well-founded, is absolutely essential. It is no longer possible to avoid the hard choices or defer to the administration's decisions. In my opinion, there are only three ways we can respond to this threat: We can accept the inevitability of a nuclear Iran and learn to live with it--to tolerate and try to contain this new Iranian power; secondly, we can reluctantly take up the military option to remove the threat--an option three Presidents have confirmed has always been on the table; or, third, we can dramatically escalate the sanctions regimes to force Iranian compliance with our collective international will. The first option--tolerating a nuclear weapons-capable Iran--is not acceptable. As I said, three previous U.S. Presidents have unequivocally stated this. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the entire region and its enormous energy resources, motivate broad nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, further destabilize a region already in turmoil, encourage radicalism and terrorism, and threaten the destruction of the State of Israel. This last danger alone--to which Israel, as a last resort, would most certainly respond to ensure its survival--compels us to be clear-eyed and determined to find a viable solution. Toleration, I would suggest, is not a solution. The second option--military action, while always posed as a last resort following the failure of all other efforts--must, in my opinion, remain on the table. Our Nation and the international community as a whole must see with vivid clarity what measures remain should our other efforts continue to fail. The Iranian regime must be especially nondelusional about those potential consequences, should it not change its behavior. Indeed, to make all our efforts to find a solution credible, the military option itself must be entirely believable. It is also essential to note that military options are not ours alone. There is broad, open discussion now in Israel and elsewhere about whether Israel itself should act to remove this threat to the survival of their state. This also must be part of our own policy calculation. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a television interview this weekend: ``I don't have any doubt that the Israelis will defend themselves if the Iranians look as if they really are about to cross that nuclear threshold.'' If there is any remaining doubt the United States should not tolerate a nuclear Iran, I think we can assume Israel may not. It is exactly to avoid this violent option that we must renew all our efforts at finding other ways to force the Iranian regime to change its behavior, and that includes compelling persuasion to convince our friends and allies--and China and Russia as well--that united efforts are essential. We need a new dramatically tougher sanctions regime, and we need it now. If we don't impose it now, it may very well be too late. I say this with some real reservations about whether any new sanctions can persuade the Iranian regime to change its policy. If we truly believe a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable, then the only logical response is to at least prepare for a strike and send the signal that the United States is prepared to act on what has been deemed by, as I said, three Presidents as unacceptable. I think it is contrary to U.S. interests to try to outsource this task to the State of Israel, but I also think the long-term danger is far greater than the serious but shorter term negative consequences of a strike. Having said that, this force option needs to be carefully considered, and I think we need to continue whatever efforts we can make to prevent us from having to ultimately choose that as our only option. So I am suggesting a new, dramatically tougher sanctions regime. It is going to have to be imposed very quickly. Publicly released information clearly indicates that Iran is much closer to nuclear weapons capability than previously acknowledged. We must use the full focused power of our diplomatic instrument not to persuade Iran--that has clearly been a total failure to date--but to persuade other nations that immediate, tough, new international sanctions are the only way to prevent us from having to go to an option which none of us wishes to go to. We must convince other reluctant nations to make different calculations about their own self-interest in this matter. If other Nations, including China and Russia, come to realize that a nuclear Iran truly will not be tolerated and that new developments bring us closer to a military solution and its unforeseeable consequences, then they will hopefully come to different conclusions about how their own interests can best be served. Our allies and friends, once they come to accept the reality of our firm determination to neither tolerate a nuclear Iran nor remove the military option, will increase their own commitment to the sorts of sanctions regime that are now essential. This in turn will show the Iranian regime at last that they face a truly united, truly formidable, and genuinely firm coalition entirely devoted to preventing them from having nuclear weapons at their disposal. Only then will we have a chance to force the regime to change its behavior. So far, as I said, sanctions are simply not achieving the desired result. Those who point to their modest effect actually harm the broader effort, because those effects deflect our determination to force a real change in Iranian behavior. Sanctions may have reduced Iranian GDP by one or two percentage points and may have forced the regime to find creative ways to avoid them. For example, I understand that as official banks have been subject to sanctions, many banks have miraculously privatized. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that these sanctions have actually forced the regime to change its behavior regarding its nuclear ambitions. And now we learn from the IAEA report that these sanctions have also not been serious obstacles to the technological, commercial, and scientific activities focused on acquiring nuclear weapons capability. We simply must do much more, and we must do it now. I am cosponsor of a bill, S. 1048, which is intended to further tighten the noose on the Iranian regime. I will continue to support those measures. But in light of this new information from the IAEA, I am in favor of even greater sanctions pressure. I have signed a letter to the President calling on him to use his prerogatives to impose sanctions on the Iranian central bank. Many have opposed that option because it could constrict global energy supplies, increase oil prices, and would be ineffective if not supported by other nations. According to media reports, the administration itself decided just days before the release of this IAEA report to take central bank sanctions off the table for these reasons. This was, I believe, a serious mistake and those judgments, I suggest, should be reconsidered. When the reality of this imminent threat to global security is clear, when all nations reflect on the consequences of military action against Iran, and when a well-designed comprehensive new sanctions regime with real teeth is presented to them, we will have the determined coalition we need to avert the disastrous consequences of our failure to prevent the unacceptable. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I didn't come to interrupt opening statements. I guess they are completed. I do have a point that is directly related to this particular appropriations bill which I would like to discuss, and I am going to offer to put forward an amendment as a consequence of this. I am glad the chairwoman and the ranking member are here so I can put this on the Record, and they are familiar with what I am going to do. This is a matter that is important both to my State of Indiana and, I believe, the Federal Government's involvement in subsidizing or loan guarantees or other support for various energy development projects. All of us, I think, are concerned over the situation with Solyndra, where a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy to construct a solar panel manufacturing facility has now gone bust, and the taxpayer is on the hook for over $\1/2\ billion of loan guarantee and money that is lost to the taxpayer. That money likely will never be repaid. However, my concern goes beyond Solyndra. I didn't come here to talk about Solyndra. But there is a similar situation that may be occurring and I want to raise this issue because it goes, again, to decisions that are being made by the Department's energy renewal offices relative to loans to private entities and loan guarantees to private entities. This particular situation involves the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing, or ATVM, Loan Program. Some of those loans are going to what may turn out to be viable improvements in our ability to lighten vehicles, to increase mileage, to provide for alternative sources of fuel. I think that is still up in the air and still to be determined. But this particular program I want to talk about involves a program that I am not sure fits within the proper category. Earlier this year the Department issued a nearly three-quarters--$730 million-- conditional loan commitment to Severstal North America under the ATVM program. Let me read from the Department's press release. The funding will support the modernization of [Severstal's] existing facilities in Dearborn, MI, in addition to the design, manufacture and construction of new facilities to produce the next generation of automotive advanced high- strength steel. The Severstal project has the potential to significantly increase the supply of this advanced high strength steel in North America as demand continues to grow for fuel efficient vehicles. Continuing the release: An increased supply for this breakthrough technology steel will help U.S. automotive manufacturers meet the pending and future design, weight and safety requirements of advanced technology vehicles. Severstal estimates the project will generate over 2,500 construction jobs and over 260 permanent manufacturing jobs. That is the end of the Department's press release. The Department of Energy makes it sound as though this loan to Severstal will promote a completely new breakthrough technology. The problem is, this simply is not true. In fact, six companies already manufacture the advanced high-strength steel that Severstal is seeking to receive a loan to help produce. Three of those companies have production facilities in my home State of Indiana: Arcelor Mittal, Steel Dynamics, and U.S. Steel. Evidence shows that the market for this type of steel is strong and robust in the United States, with multiple producers already manufacturing these high-technology products. In fact, I am told that this high-strength steel has been manufactured in the United States since the 1980s, and the current capacity for this steel actually surpasses current demand. All of this information should be available to the Energy Department for their consideration as to whether they should go forward with this loan, but the Department spokesperson is quoted as saying that advanced high-strength steel is ``in short supply.'' This begs the question as to whether the administration has seriously conducted any type of market analysis before deciding to award this loan. Did the Department research what advanced high-strength steel products are already in the marketplace and whether a taxpayer loan was even needed? Based on the Department's public comments it seems unlikely that the administration made any estimates of current and future capacity in the United States for the production of this steel or talked to any steel producers outside of Severstal. I think a legitimate question is: What is the impact of this loan? Should it be finalized? Subsidizing Severstal to produce a product already being manufactured would undercut competitors because Severstal, of course, will have lower costs due to the nearly $\3/4\ billion loan guarantee. There is also no job creation here that fits the description of what the Department indicated would be the case with new jobs. Given the state of supply and demand, any new jobs created at Severstal would come at a cost to other producers, creating, at best, a net zero job gain. That means job losses in Indiana and Pennsylvania where the high- strength steel already is manufactured. Moreover, the Department claims that ``over 2,500 construction jobs'' would be created by the issuance of the loan. That claim is dubious at best, since most of the plant construction is already manufactured. Moreover, the Department claims that Severstal's own documents claim that two of the three required lines will be finished by December 2011. Only an annealing line valued at one-third of the amount of the loan is awaiting final approval, and the Department's own Web site states, ``Loans will not be available on a retroactive basis.'' Here we have a situation where the Department's own release and justification of the loan states a number of construction jobs to be put in place when the construction is virtually finished. Second, when most of the completion includes, with one exception, what only amounts to one-third of the loan that is being asked for, it makes you wonder why the loan is two-thirds greater than that. We have to ask the question, is it proper to give a company nearly $\3/4\ billion for facilities that have already been built and for production of a product that is already manufactured and in excess supply in the United States--particularly for two States that are impacted by this, the State of Indiana and the State of Pennsylvania? Here we are back in a situation where the Federal Government is picking winners and losers in a fully functioning and growing product market. Based on these concerns, I sent a letter to the Department of Energy Secretary Chu in August, seeking answers to a number of these questions I have been raising. Unfortunately the Department sent back a very nonresponsive reply that did not address any of my concerns. As a result, I believe it is necessary to call on the inspector general of the Department of Energy to investigate the Severstal loan and report back to Congress his findings. American taxpayers deserve to know what is happening with our tax dollars and the hardworking employees of other steel companies manufacturing the same steel deserve to know why the Department of Energy is attempting to undercut their job security by subsidizing a competitor. Today I am introducing an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would direct the Energy Department's inspector general to submit a report to Congress on the conditional loan agreement currently in place to Severstal. Such a report by the inspector general can help clarify why or why not this conditional loan to Severstal should be granted. The Department needs to be more transparent and forthcoming with how it is using taxpayers' dollars. We need to learn lessons from the disaster that is Solyndra and the cost to the taxpayer. The last thing the Department of Energy, this administration, or this Congress needs to do is to authorize a nearly $\3/4\ billion loan for a product that is already being manufactured by domestic steel suppliers and is not needed. We need that determination. That is why I am offering this amendment. Mr. President, if time permits, I wish also to step aside from the current topic to briefly discuss another matter. I do not want to exceed the time limitation that might be in place. It appears I can go forward with that without a problem. Mr. President, I also want to discuss the subject of a vote last week by UNESCO, the United Nations Education and Scientific Cultural Organization, to grant membership to the Palestinian Authority even though it is not a recognized country. UNESCO should not have the authority to do so, but through a vote in the United Nations it did just that. The United States has been an on-and-off supporter of UNESCO. There has been a lot of controversy with UNESCO over its lack of effectiveness and the cost to the taxpayer. It has resulted in questions as to whether we should continue funding that organization. We currently support that. This action that has been taken to admit the Palestinian Authority as a member state is, I submit, completely misguided and deeply damaging. UNESCO's decision has further dimmed prospects for a negotiated peace in the Middle East. My fear is that this step--which the Palestinians mistakenly regard as a success--will encourage them to press for membership in other U.N. bodies as well. Doing so will harm Israel, harm the Palestinians' own interests, harm the U.N. agencies involved, and harm our own national interests. As a consequence of this, the United States is obligated under law to terminate all funding for UNESCO and any other U.N. body that admits the Palestinian Authority. Public law 101-246, which passed in 1990, states that: ``no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestinian Liberation Organization [the PLO] the same standing as member states.'' That is the law. That is what has been enacted through votes in this body and signed by Presidents of the United States. In 1994, Congress passed Public Law 103-236, which prohibits ``voluntary or assessed contribution to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood,'' which the PLO does not have. The Senate, on a vote codifying these laws--or reaffirming them, I should say--passed this legislation 92 to 8, indicating that this clearly should be a noncontroversial and nonpartisan issue, clearly, a 92-to-8 vote. The reason I am speaking here today is despite our legal obligation to suspend funding as a result of UNESCO's latest action, there has been some speculation that it may be possible to find alternative ways to financially support U.N. agencies such as UNESCO that have taken this step of admitting the Palestinians as a member. That would be a total mistake. I want to reiterate the fact that it would be a violation of the law. Therefore, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that serves as an emphatic restatement of that law, making its consequences more certain. Furthermore, I am introducing this language as an amendment to the current appropriations bill, that will clarify that no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund UNESCO. We must slam the door on any speculation of any kind of backdoor financial support for the United Nations agencies that grant membership to Palestine. This bill is exactly that. There is no reason why this purposeful reinstatement of existing law should not have bipartisan support. The threat to prospects for negotiated, just, and lasting peace that is posed by this recent Palestinian tactic is more tangible now than in the past. Our determination to discourage such a dangerous tactic should be stronger than ever. I ask that my colleagues join in support of this legislation that makes it clear to UNESCO, the United Nations, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and clear to the rest of the world that the United States will not tolerate attempts to admit the Palestinian Authority and undercut negotiated peace efforts in the Middle East. I am hoping we will have a vote on this to once again reaffirm our determined commitment to live by the laws we have passed and to not allow an agency of the United Nations or any part of the United Nations be used to grant statesmanship and nationhood to an entity that has not qualified for that. I hope this reaffirmation will also put to rest any speculation or any attempts to circumvent the laws that exist on the books. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank my friend for asking me that question, and I thank him so much for his answer to the previous question. I have visited those utilities. Let me mention one. Tanners Creek is down along the Ohio River. It is a facility that will have to retire many units under this proposal, at the cost of more than 60 jobs. These types of closures may result in increased energy costs for consumers and the loss of electricity that will flow into the grid, potentially causing blackouts or interruptions in electric supply. They are good citizens. They have plans to deal with their plants, to comply with these regulations. But they need more time to do it. They have also said: If we have to do this immediately, with all the plants all across the country, there is a shortage of equipment and contractors that are able to manufacture this type of equipment necessary and install it. That will drive up costs. As the Senator from West Virginia has said, all of this is borne on the backs of the taxpayers, those who receive utility bills, whether for residences or companies that receive bills that are producing in the Midwest. The Senator's State and my State--we make big stuff, such as cars, locomotives, airplanes, major airplane parts, and big machines--things at the industrial heart of America. So it takes a lot of energy to produce the kinds of products that are made in our States. To have a sudden spike in utility costs at a time when our economy is struggling is the worst thing we could do in this economy. While this amendment is not designed to specifically address that issue, it certainly helps us as we work our way through the downturn in the economy that has kept people out of work and kept our economy from growing as it should. This is just another blow to the manufacturing industry in the Midwest, particularly in terms of hiring and in terms of being competitive and making a product. So the industries have come forward and said: We will comply, and we have complied--$100 billion-plus in compliance, which is a record to date. It will be continued as we go forward. We are simply asking for a sensible timeframe in which to do this. In conclusion--and then I will turn it back to my friend--to my colleagues, I simply say that the allegation that this undermines what we are trying to do relative to providing clean air for American citizens to breathe is exaggerated and not true. Our bill requires compliance with the Clean Air Act, and it does not take away any regulation relative to these emissions that are poured into the air out of our utilities. It is a bipartisan bill. This is not something that divides us on a partisan basis. It has industry support and labor support. It ensures full compliance with the Clean Air Act and reduction levels through regulations. It ensures that we won't have energy disruptions and blackouts and grid problems. It keeps jobs, and it spreads out the costs so that utility payers aren't hit with the shock of an increase in their bills. And the time to do it is set in a way that it will be accomplished within a more reasonable period of time. It synchronizes the two rules on reductions of emissions, the sulfur and nitrous oxide, as well as mercury and other toxins, so utilities can make the necessary changes at the same time. We urge our colleagues to look at the details of the bill and study this. I see no reason why those who are concerned just about the environment and those who might be concerned just about the production capacity can't come together in a compromise and achieve the ends they both want to meet. With that, I yield the floor and turn it back to my colleague. I thank him for his work in this process. We have been working together to do this in a way that both sides can support.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for joining with me to produce a bipartisan, commonsense solution that is supported by both industry and labor, a piece of legislation that will ensure that the provision established through the Clean Air Act relative to the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, and other emissions will not be reduced and eliminated. We do nothing to stop the progress that has been made over many years in regard to cleaning up our air. We should be proud as Americans that we have taken the steps necessary to produce a cleaner environment, to eliminate toxic pollutants in the air. Over $100 billion has been spent by industry to retrofit their energy-producing plants with equipment that reduces and eliminates these pollutants. So we are not here today to advocate in favor of pumping more toxins into the air. We are here today to say we need a reasonable provision in place that would allow these industries to continue to spend the billions of dollars they are spending and do it in a timely manner so that we can reach the goal established through the Clean Air Act and other regulations. But I think this current regulation we had a vote on--the Paul resolution--less than an hour ago, which came close to passing, now sets the stage for this particular provision, which the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, and I have cosponsored. The Fair Compliance Act simply says that we want to continue to meet those standards, but we need to do it in a time-sensitive way so that industry can comply with the necessary procedures to arrange the plans, hire the contractors, and install the equipment. The timeline proposed by the EPA is simply unattainable, unreasonable, and punitive. It costs jobs and money. Furthermore, it negatively impacts these necessary energy- producing facilities in the United States that are critical to our economy and employment. What we need now is an extension of 2 years on one of the provisions and 3 years on the other so that companies can address these rules together. For those who have indicated on the floor in previous debate that we are undermining and undercutting regulations from going forward to reduce contaminants in the air, that is absolutely incorrect. We are ensuring that these will take place in a reasonable way that won't cost us jobs and further harm our economy. Just to repeat something and to ask my colleague from West Virginia, my understanding is that this has significant labor and industry support. My colleague has outlined a number of industries and a number of labor unions that have supported this. I know there is some concern that the utilities have avoided these rules in the past--that has been alleged--although they have spent over $100 billion in compliance. And some say this is just another delaying tactic. I ask my colleague, what would he say to people who object to this legislation on those grounds?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. My understanding is that we are going back and forth, and I think we should stay with that order. So I appreciate the support of the Senator from Rhode Island for that agreed-upon procedure.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Paul's resolution. The word ``extreme'' has gotten thrown around here an awful lot. I just walked on the floor. What is being sought here is not extreme. Under the Clean Air Act, there have been extraordinary gains in terms of air pollution controls, and there have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the last couple of decades to provide some much needed and much appreciated clean air all across the country. Are we 100 percent there yet? No. Are we a long way toward getting there? Yes. The issue before us today is, can we allow sufficient time for utilities that are spending these hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to continue the process of retrofitting their plants and providing energy to consumers and businesses at a reasonable rate. In the Midwest where a lot of these plants exist--although this covers 27 States--we make big stuff. We make cars and we make trains and we make automobiles and heavy machinery. It takes electricity to do that. Our economy is not based on maple syrup or wine from Napa Valley, it is based on major, huge industries producing what America needs to move people around and to create the kind of economy all of us have enjoyed. It also provides a lot of jobs. We have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars in complying with Clean Air Act regulations, and we have come a long way. There is nothing extreme to talk about here on either side, I believe, because the record speaks for itself. The question is, Do these utilities that produce this energy needed to run this economy have time to finish what they have started? Senator Paul has basically said: Look, this EPA rule basically says companies have until January 1, and that is it. I have a plant down on the Ohio River that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in retrofit, but they can't meet this deadline. They are now in a position of having to decide whether to throw this money away and to waste everything they have already put in when they are halfway through the process or close the plant down completely. Six plants will close down in Indiana, it is projected, with an increase in utility rates not just to consumers but to our manufacturers at the level of 20 to 25 to 30 percent. At a time when our economy is struggling, is this something we want to add, particularly for an industry that is committed to going forward but just needs a little bit more time? That is the purpose of this resolution before us, and I am hoping we will take a reasonable view of the gains we have achieved over the decades we have been at work, the clean air we have achieved, the commitment to the final goal of the Clean Air Act but doing it in a reasonable timeframe in a cost-effective way that doesn't throw our economy into a further level of distress in terms of the number of jobs we need and the amount of money that has to be spent to achieve that. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from California. I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island. If the Senator from California wants to finish her time, I am happy to----

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. If this is the case, why did he not ask for this? We don't need to include this additional funding to meet the needs of the people for the disasters that have already occurred. The funding necessary to do that is included in the House bill on which we will be voting. Republicans want to ensure that the communities devastated by disasters receive the resources that will help them rebuild. We recognize that American citizens have had their lives turned upside down by Mother Nature. The CR will provide adequate disaster relief through November in accordance with the President's request and FEMA's stated needs. As a result, there is no need to have all of this additional assistance immediately as part of the CR. I urge Members to support passage of the CR the House will be sending us.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President I want to respond to some of the statements that have been made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding the need to add disaster relief to the Continuing Resolution we will consider this week. There is no question that there is a need for some emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2011 disaster relief. There is agreement on both sides of the aisle that FEMA is short of money to meet its immediate needs in this fiscal year which expires at midnight on September 30. The Disaster Relief Fund is dangerously low, and on September 9 the President requested $500 million in emergency appropriations to finish out the immediate needs between now and the end of this fiscal year, which is just a little more than 1 week away, and that has been provided and taken care of. The House is working on sending the Senate a continuing resolution that includes this emergency funding and more--more than the President's $500 million request. The House CR is expected to include $774 million for FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--plus an additional $226 million for the Army Corps of Engineers for emergency flood control. This emergency funding is not covered by the Budget Control Act, so in accordance with procedures that have been put in place this year and in trying to be as careful with taxpayers' money as we can, the House offered an offset. That was defeated yesterday in the House. While this funding covers FEMA's immediate needs, as requested by the President, through the rest of the fiscal year, the House bill also includes additional funding at the current level of $2.65 billion in fiscal year 2012 for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which will provide the necessary funding to deal with the requests and make sure people get the support they need from losses in the various disasters through this continuing resolution period, which will go to around November 18. It is important to note that, despite some of the allegations being made, Republicans support this disaster funding. It is critical to respond to the many disasters that have affected so many States over the past few months. However, the additional funding for fiscal year 2012 sought by Senator Reid and Senate Democrats is not needed immediately. In fact, the President has not requested immediate passage of any of this additional funding beyond what is needed to provide FEMA what it needs to address the situations and to make the necessary payments between now and the expiration of this current resolution which we will be voting on this week. This is not to say we should not consider additional disaster relief. I recognize the challenges that so many States face in response to the disasters that have recently struck across the country. My own home State of Indiana has experienced floods that merited a disaster declaration from the President earlier this year. As a nation, we need to step forward and address these immediate needs, but we have a process in place in this body to address this. The Budget Control Act recently passed by Congress does allow a process for providing disaster relief in fiscal year 2012 through a disaster cap adjustment. As a result from that, the Senate Appropriations Committee--which I am the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which oversees FEMA--has been considering the fiscal year 2012 bill and has included disaster assistance, where appropriate, pursuant to the disaster cap adjustment in the Budget Control Act. The key words here are ``where appropriate.'' We need to be in a position to provide additional funding should more disasters occur. But there is no need to go forward with what Senator Reid has proposed, that is, dumping a lot of money that has not yet been certified as needed into an expenditure, particularly at a time when every dollar of expenditure needs to be carefully weighed in terms of our current fiscal situation. Some have noted that while the CR may adequately fund FEMA, it doesn't address the other agencies that need additional disaster funding. If that is the case, then why hasn't the President requested these additional funds immediately? On September 9, the President sent Congress his request for additional FEMA disaster relief funding, including the $500 million emergency funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. However, this request did not include any funding for the other agencies in Senator Reid's proposal. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 more minute.

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent to take 6 minutes of Senator Rubio's time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the allocation of time? The Senator from Vermont has generously yielded me the opportunity to speak for a few moments. I want to make sure I don't get the situation mixed up here so that we run out of time.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we all heard the President speak to a joint session of Congress last week about his jobs bill, which was released this morning. The President indicated he wanted to take his case to the people. I am glad he is doing so. As he travels about the country, I think he will be hearing what many of us heard during the August work period when we were back at home. As I traveled across the State of Indiana and talked to people from all different categories of industry--small to medium to large businesses--homeowners and other constituents, one thing came through loudly and clearly: I needed to listen to them more than they needed to listen to me. What was on their minds is what I think the President will be hearing about as he travels across the country to talk about his jobs plan because, clearly, on the minds of the American people are jobs and the lack of jobs for many who are struggling through a very difficult time of unemployment. There are students who graduated from college with no place to go. People in middle age are being laid off or terminated, unable to find new work. Clearly, we have a jobs crisis in this country. It has lasted now for some time. We have been in a deep recession. Hopefully, we are coming out of it, but the latest indicators show that things are pretty stagnant. In fact, the latest facts that came forward in the August reports were that job growth is zero. So we have some work to do. We also need to look carefully at the proposal the President brought before us. Getting back to the central point I am trying to make, what he will hear, I believe, from the American people--at least he will hear it if he stops in Indiana--is there is a great cloud of uncertainty hanging over the future and, because of that, people are holding back on spending and businesses are holding back on hiring. There certainly is not the confidence we have seen in the past. We have seen that confidence indicator drop and drop and drop--confidence in the future that we have our act together, that we are pulling out of this recession, and that we can look forward to a brighter tomorrow because our economy will be growing and we will be adding more jobs. That uncertainty results from a number of factors. Clearly, we have been in a downturn, and we are trying to climb out of that, but there is also uncertainty about what policies will be coming out of Washington that will affect the job creators and will affect consumers as they contemplate decisions regarding how to go forward. One of those key indicators is the uncertainty over what the Tax Code will bring regarding the taxing of profits or income or revenue that comes into America's companies. I wish to highlight one of those because it is important to the State of Indiana, but I think it also makes the larger point. There are industries that can be an essential part of our future and that can and are providing for essential employment, at higher than average wages with good skill levels, and that hold a lot of potential for our exporting successfully overseas as well as providing necessary products here at home. One of those industries is centrally located in Indiana--in fact, it is one of our top industries and an industry with significant growth over the last decade or more; that industry is the medical device industry. Yet the medical device industry, because of its success, was targeted during the formation of the health care plan that was proposed by the President and passed by this Congress in the last session. That bill imposed a tax increase on the medical device industry, even though they did not have a direct relationship with what was trying to be accomplished in the ObamaCare medical plan. Here is an industry that is a world leader, where the United States is a world leader, an industry that brings in substantial revenue, has seen a significant increase in growth, and holds great potential for the future. Yet because there was a search for pay-fors for the health care plan, the administration looked at this industry and basically said: We can draw some taxes and provide some revenues. Their proposal was to achieve $40 billion over a period of time, all of which would go to help pay for the health care plan. That was reduced through an amendment--or through negotiations-- to $20 billion. Nevertheless, it should have never been included in the first place. It was there for a revenue raiser, and it didn't have anything to do with the particular plan. Indiana is one of the world leaders in the development of medical technologies that enhance and save the lives of Hoosiers and patients around the world. We have more than 300 FDA- registered medical device manufacturers, employing 20,000 Hoosiers directly and another 28,000 indirectly. There are more than 400,000 workers employed nationwide by this industry. These are jobs that pay, on average, 41 percent higher wages than the State wage rate in Indiana. Medical device manufacturing has been a thriving industry. It is critical to our State economy and many States' economies, and I will list some of those. States such as California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, and including my State of Indiana could suffer more job losses if this tax is allowed to go into effect. In fact, a study that has come out produced by the Advanced Medical Technology Association analyzed the potential effect of the health care law's device tax on employment and the medical device industry, and I quote from that report: . . . under reasonable assumptions, the tax could result in job losses in excess of 43,000 workers and employment compensation losses in excess of $3.5 billion. That would be a devastating blow to the industry and, of course, to many local economies. Beyond that, I have met with these device manufacturers on numerous occasions. Essentially, what they have said to me is: We like working in Indiana. We like the productivity we are getting. But if we continue to be taxed and regulated to the point where we are no longer competitive in selling our products worldwide, we are going to have to take a serious look at moving our production overseas. They said: We don't want to do this. We want to stay here. But we need to be competitive because you have to understand that a lot of our revenue comes from exporting overseas. Of course, this is what we want to encourage. Our trade balance is in deficit and the more we can export and the more we have cutting-edge industries that export enhanced products to overseas customers, the better our own economic situation will be here at home. At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work and at a time when our country has suffered through 31 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent, I think we need to take a close look at the job creators in our country and determine whether the taxation or regulation that is being imposed on them is having a dramatic impact on our ability to provide more jobs. The people I have talked to said it is having the opposite effect. Senator Hatch has introduced a bill to repeal this tax. It was controversial when it was first brought forward. I think the Congress ought to take a look at this legislation. If we want to provide some job-creating opportunities in America, we need to look at the taxes and regulations that are stifling growth and the ability to hire more people. I am a proud sponsor of Senator Hatch's legislation to repeal this excise tax. It will, as I said, benefit many States and provide many jobs and prevent jobs from leaving American soil. So I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to join this commonsense legislation and repeal the tax on medical devices. If we want to spur economic growth, it is time we take a closer look at the harmful impacts of policies that are stifling growth. This is one industry--and I hope to highlight more in the future--but one industry that clearly is being penalized for being successful. It is hurting our economy, and it is hurting our ability to provide job growth. I wish the President well. I hope he listens intently. I hope he hears the same sentiment I heard as I traveled around the State of Indiana. I believe the conclusion is inevitable; that is, taxation, regulation, and the policies coming out of Washington bring uncertainty to the marketplace, and uncertainty to the marketplace affects consumer confidence and affects the confidence of those job creators and employers who are frozen in time waiting to see how all this is going to turn out. They are fearful of hiring more employees because they do not know what the impact is going to be on their payroll and on their expenses, and they are waiting for the next regulation to come down that might impact their business in a negative way. We need certainty coming out of Washington, not uncertainty. I am hoping over the next 2 or 3 months, as Congress works to come together with a sensible plan to deal with our deficit, we can enact a good plan for the future in terms of how to deal with our deficit and we can bring some certainty to the future and get our economy back on the right track. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, for what he just said. I want to affirm the extraordinary amount of effort he has made to not only inform this Senate body of the crisis that we face financially, but also to come forward with some very constructive solutions on how to deal with this crisis. I know he is disappointed that we were not able to reach a better solution than the one voted on today. I know he struggled to decide what was the best course to follow moving forward. In the end, he decided to support the bill as a first step; but, as he said, this is the first step of what probably will be a decade-long challenge facing all of us to successfully address this deep hole of debt we have dug for ourselves as a nation. I rise today to speak, sharing all those concerns, certainly believing that our work has just started and there is much more to do. But also as someone who decided to vote against the bill that we just had before us. I have not taken this vote lightly. For the past 1\1/2\ years, as a candidate I traveled the State of Indiana, to just about every town and city in the State, talking to thousands and thousands of Hoosiers on a day-after-day basis hearing what they had to say. If, frankly, I could categorize their thoughts into one statement, it would be a deep concern about the future of our country and a deep desire to have their elected representatives go to Washington and do everything they can to address this situation. I have spent the last 7 months in the Senate hearing from hundreds, if not thousands, of Hoosiers who have written, called, visited, and talked with me back at home. Nothing has changed except the urgency of these concerns, and the deep worries that they have expressed have simply grown. We saw, in 2010, Americans across the country express their desire for Congress to get hold of our fiscal situation; that the era of spending, of promising beyond our means, was over, and that we had to take major steps to reverse that. That is why I decided to return to the Senate, to come back to work to help repair our country's economic future. I came back to work on the things that many consider politically toxic: entitlement reform, tax reform, passing a balanced budget amendment to make sure that we would never end up in this situation again; that if there was a legacy that we could pass on to our children, if there was something that we could do for the future of our country, something that we could do for our children and grandchildren, and everyone's children and grandchildren, it would be to never have them have to go through what we are going through now because we had taken fiscal responsibility, passing a balanced budget amendment that would, as we are sworn in, require each of us to come here and put our left hand on the Bible and our right hand in the air, to repeat the oath to honor the Constitution, and that Constitution would attain a balanced budget amendment as a requirement. So before taking this vote, I pondered for days and nights about the many Hoosiers who had put their faith and confidence in me and sent me back to the Senate to do everything I could to accomplish this goal. Some of those Hoosiers had tears in their eyes, worried about the future for themselves and for their children. Some had fingers in my chest, saying: Don't let me down. Don't go and settle for too little. Do everything you can. That is what I have tried to do. After giving it consideration, I decided not to support this bill because I could not come to grips with having to come back and tell Hoosiers that this is the best we could do. I do wish to recognize the work and leadership, the strategy and the efforts of our minority leader, Senator McConnell, and whip, Senator Kyl, those in leadership and others--John Boehner and Eric Cantor in the House and the people who represented Republicans at the White House. I, like most of us who serve here, appreciate their hard work and understand their frustration at Washington's inability to accomplish a meaningful goal, a grand bargain or at least a big plan that would put us significantly on the way to fiscal reform. I don't hold them liable at all or anybody who voted for this bill. As Senator Corker just said and as others have said and can say: Look, this is the best we could do. We will keep going. I applaud that. It is just that I thought we could have done so much more when the crisis we face is so severe, when the consequences are so great and imminent. It is not 2013. It is not even 2012. It is now. I don't know what the rating agencies are going to do because of our debt. Many were saying that this vote would not result in a debt downgrade. I think already we have heard information to the contrary, that that is not the case. That means the full faith and confidence in the United States of America as being that last safe haven of safety is put at risk. We have taken a step in the right direction. It is a small step. It is a marathon we have to run, and we do need to go much further. I believe the bill we just passed is significantly short of what is needed to address the severity of the crisis. Senator Corker said there has been a consensus that a minimum of $4 trillion of cuts are needed over the next 10 years, with true enforcement mechanisms to lock those cuts in place. We achieved just half of that in the bill we passed. I have been stating over and over that the reality is if we do not address health care spending and the entitlements that provide benefits through Medicaid and Medicare, the virtual consensus is, no matter what else we do, we will not be able to solve the problem. This is an area that people do not want to talk about. It is supposedly the third rail of politics. It is suicide to bring it up, and there have been a lot of efforts to avoid these tough choices. But that is what we are going to have to do. It has been avoided in this bill, pushed off to the selection of a special committee of six Senators, six Congressmen; balanced, six and six from each party, to come up with an additional $1 trillion of savings or perhaps a little more. I have some real reservations about whether this committee should have to do this in the first place because that is the job of Congress, all of us. That is what we were elected to do and we were not able to do it. We have turned it over to 12 Members of Congress. I am not sure how they are going to accomplish what we were not able to. Nevertheless, I hope and pray they are successful, and I hope they will address, in whatever recommendation they make to us later this year, entitlement reform and make a commitment to tax reform: entitlement reform because that spending is bankrupting this country and is denying future seniors benefits they are counting on--who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare-- denying them the opportunity to rest easy that their benefits will remain the same or increase with the cost of living. The situation the trustees have reported regarding the future of the Medicare Part A is that serious cuts will have to be made unless we take measures now to reform the system in a way that preserves those benefits for those currently on it and those within, say, 10 years of retirement. We all know we have to do this. We all know, if we do not do this, we simply will not be able to accomplish what we need to, no matter what else we do. The real work is ahead. Congress must commit to address the root causes of our problem and our debt. We have to make the difficult choices necessary to restore economic growth and good-paying jobs for the American people. That is where tax reform comes in. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and myself have joined together to put together a comprehensive tax reform bill. I give Senator Judd Gregg credit for the 2 years he spent with Senator Wyden putting this together. Senator Wyden and I worked together for the last 7 months, making additional changes and improvements to that product. If we are going to have a growth component to grow our way--through a more prosperous economy--out of the debt problem we have, that has to include not only spending cuts, but it has to include real tax reform. Those special interests out there that are receiving exemptions and special breaks, credits, subsidies--those are going to have to be closed out on a rational basis. We can retain some of the legitimate deductions, such as mortgage interest and charitable deductions, but most have to be eliminated. Those funds and revenues generated from elimination of those special interests have to be used to reduce rates to make our businesses more competitive, to give them a rate that is competitive with businesses around the world. We are literally at the highest tax rate of all 36 of our worldwide competitors. That has to be adjusted. In doing so, we can stimulate our economy to grow, and we can bring in revenue on the basis of that growth. More companies will be making more money and therefore paying more taxes and more people will be at work and getting paychecks and therefore contributing what they are not contributing now. Past tax reform efforts, on a comprehensive basis, have proven the best stimulus we can provide for an economy and the best thing we can do to get an economy thriving and moving again is getting people back to work. So entitlement reform--absolutely necessary to preserve those programs for future retirees and benefits that current retirees are receiving--and tax reform to move our economy forward need to be the core of what this special 12-member committee deals with and recommends. My litmus test for this next tranche is that there be a commitment to move forward in these two critical areas that will have more impact on our future than anything else we do or have done so far to date. I know we have committed, through this bill that just passed, to take up, debate, and vote on a balanced budget amendment. Clearly, if we want to ensure and guarantee the future solvency of our country and the future confidence of our citizens, we need to impose upon the Constitution an amendment that balances the budget or we will find ourselves back in this situation as the propensity of Congress to spend and not say no to anyone will continue. It seems to be almost part of who we are. It is so hard to say no to someone. It is easier now, first, because we don't have the money and, second, we have expanded this government beyond its ability to fulfill its responsibilities correctly. The work is ahead. We have to address the root causes. My sleeves are rolled up. I will continue to push forward to rein in spending. I will continue to work to reform the Tax Code so businesses can provide more jobs and be more competitive. I will not back away from addressing the need for entitlement reform. We need to restructure those programs to keep them from becoming bankrupt and denying important retirement benefits for our citizens. Now is the time for us in the Congress, whether we voted for this bill or against this bill--I am not criticizing anyone who voted for it because many of those believed it is the first of many steps. It was not adequate, in my opinion, but at least it was a first step. I do not believe we should be criticizing those who made that decision. It also addressed the question of default. I did not support default, which is why I suggested a short-term plan. I believed this initial bill being presented to us was woefully inadequate for what we need to do right now to send the right signals that we are on a serious path to reform. I was willing to allow for a debt increase of a limited period of time, 6 to 8 weeks, cancel our recess, work to find a better solution that could achieve more support and gain confidence in the investment industry that we have taken a serious step forward. That obviously did not go forward. But, nevertheless, when we return from recess, all of us, whether we voted yes or no, must make a commitment to engage, plunge into the problem, to do whatever is necessary--not political necessary, whatever is necessary for the future of our country. That is our challenge, and I hope we will rise to that challenge. I have not given up on our ability to respond to the will of the people and to respond to the crisis we face. So, yea or nay, let's all agree to come back with a focus on where we need to go, what we need to do, and the courage to make the tough choices for the future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I wonder if I may ask how much time is allocated. We are a little out of kilter with the allocation of time. How much time do I have to speak? I want to make sure my colleagues have sufficient time to speak also.