Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank the Chair. But even leaving that shocking capitulation aside, we can never expect that the Iranians would negotiate under those conditions. We can now focus on the key fatal flaw of this agreement. It has been simmering for months, but it is now boiling over onto the front pages of our national attention thanks to the presentation by the Prime Minister of Israel, and that is the sunset clause. We now see that even if Iran is constrained by this agreement and even if in the most unlikely of worlds Iran fully complies with the agreement, at the end of a decade or so, Iran will be fully liberated to pursue nuclear capabilities with no limitations or constraints whatsoever--a free hand, a blank check to go forward, an Iran that will have wealth, the technical expertise, industrial infrastructure, the will, and, if given a sunset provision, the international acquiescence to do whatever they like to pursue their goal without any ability of us to stop it. They can do whatever they like. Ten years--oh, that is a long time out. Ten years is tomorrow afternoon. It is a blink of the eye. Such a sunset clause makes this entire enterprise unacceptable. Any agreement that contains a sunset clause must be rejected, and any agreement with Iran that does not impose permanent restraints on their nuclear ambitions is no agreement at all. We in the Senate have it within our ability and mandate to guarantee that happens, but to do so, we need to reach consensus across the aisle. We need to work together as Republicans and Democrats for the future security of our Nation, and for that matter, all nations. There are a number of issues on which we don't agree. There are a number of things on which we have different thoughts about how to proceed. But this is an issue of such historic consequence and such potential harm that we must find a way to work together to ensure our ability to undo what looks like is coming our way. So I plead with and I urge my colleagues--all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--to rise above any political considerations and work together to ensure that this Senate can prevent Iran from getting the bomb. History and future generations and our children and our grandchildren will judge what we do here now, and may that judgment be the right judgment for not just the future of our Nation but for the future of the world. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, last month I came to the floor to launch what I call the ``Waste of the Week.'' We look at how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We all know the biggest issue over the past several years is now sort of fading into the ether is the fact that the government continues to spend the taxpayers' money in reckless ways, including not balance our budget and go deeply into deficit spending every year, then borrow to cover the cost, and increase our debt limit from the staggering $18 trillion-plus and growing. My purpose in coming to the floor was to highlight some examples of this waste. I wish to step back for a moment to say this follows numerous bipartisan efforts to deal with a larger issue, and that is our debt and deficit, in a way that we can put a budget proposal together to get us out of this mess and stop loading up our children and grandchildren with the responsibilities and costs they probably will not be able to repay without significant sacrifice in terms of their standard of living. Having failed every one of those over the past 5 years--Simpson- Bowles, the Gang of 6, the Committee of 12, the supercommittee, the dinner committee on which I serve 7 arduous months trying to come to some minimal agreement in terms of how to deal with our debt and deficit because the President blocked every single attempt. I thought the least we could do was look at the simple things, the easy things. We started with--not such a small thing--duplication of efforts in terms of benefits that went to people that were actually illegal totaling $5.7 billion, the difference between Social Security disability and unemployment insurance. Last week I talked about duplication. There are 52 programs--through the Federal Government, through a number of agencies, to provide assistance on economic development. Do we need 52? Can't we consolidate some of these down to three or four? Why does every agency in the government have to duplicate what is being done in every other agency? We talked about the savings that would come from that. It is my understanding that the minority leader and the minority whip--No. 1 and 2 on the Democratic side--came down here and talked about the fact that in the budget we may be cutting funding for the National Institutes of Health and how tragic it would be if we took one penny away from them. I can give them a very simple example on the third week of Waste of the Week in terms of how they can save some money or better utilize some money through the National Institutes of Health. This is a study for which I have to give credit to my former Senate colleague, Dr. Tom Coburn. For years Dr. Coburn highlighted examples of government waste, fraud, and abuse. He was a champion of transparency and made great strides in giving the American people a more accountable government. So I come here today to share one of Dr. Coburn's taxpayer issues he brought before the Senate, and I think it needs to be brought here now. How timely it is when I was just preceded unknowingly by those who came to the floor saying we can't take a penny out of NIH because it goes to critical research. I support NIH. I think it is an important agency. We need to do some of that research. But does NIH need to do this: Does NIH need to fund a study to determine the benefits of massage by using 18 white rabbits from New Zealand that receive 30-minute massages four times a day? According to co-medical director of the Ohio State University Sports Medical Center, ``We tried to mimic Swedish massage because anecdotally, it's the most popular technique used by athletes.'' That study amounted to a cost of $387,000 of taxpayer money given in a grant. Why didn't they just ask the football team? Why didn't they just walk in the locker room and say: Hey guys, you have just been beat up for 60 minutes and you probably have a lot of aches and pains. A good hot shower and a massage--does that help? I think every one of us--we have all had aches and pains--understands that a massage helps relieve the soreness. Do we need to spend $387,000 on a study and take 18 white rabbits and give them massages four times a day on taxpayer dollars to prove the point that massages actually work? So once again, while this is a small thing, we have to add to our chart showing that we continue to expend taxpayer money and waste taxpayer money on frivolous things that are not needed. You can point out every egregious agency spending. Until we are willing to have the political will to stand up and deal with the runaway entitlements, these discretionary programs will continue to be squeezed. Unfortunately, we have come to a roadblock under this Presidency in terms of any effort left to deal with the larger issue of runaway spending and runaway debt. This burden is being placed on the future of America and the children and grandchildren of Americans and that is generational theft, and it is irresponsible for this body to not take action. At the very least, can we not at least do the most simple of things in terms of eliminating waste of taxpayer dollars through duplication, and unnecessary studies? Eliminating waste like this will not change Washington's long-term fiscal picture, but it does point out that it is important to ensure that taxpayer funding of projects like this keep, like the Energizer bunny, going and going. I hate to say this, but sadly, after the project was over, the 18 New Zealand white rabbits were euthanized. It is my hope that in going forward, instead of killing rabbits, we can kill taxpayer-funded government waste like this project. I see my colleague from Arizona has come to the floor. I have just finished the latest ``Waste of the Week.'' We will be back next week with ``Waste of the Week'' No. 4. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to launch what I have called Waste of the Week. I will put my prop up here. Waste of the Week is designed to provide awareness in simple ways to our colleagues here, how we can look at government spending that doesn't stack up in terms of something that is needed. Perhaps it was needed at one particular time, or perhaps it is something the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for in the first place. I would like to raise awareness, and I am going to do that each week. This is my second week. This evening I wish to present the second Waste of the Week. Last week we talked about the $6 billion that could be saved if we simply fixed a program that was duplicating checks to taxpayers who only qualified for payments from one of those programs, not both. If you are disabled and can't work, you can qualify for Social Security disability. Alternatively, you can qualify for unemployment insurance if you can work, but you are not able to find a job. You can qualify for unemployment insurance, but you can't get both. You either can work, or you can't work. Here are two Federal programs that shockingly cost the taxpayers $6 billion. This is the second week of Waste of the Week, and I would like to talk about duplication in government. While it is a little harder to put a specific fiscal number on the savings, clearly we can save the taxpayer money and start this process. We can do this even in small ways to reduce our debt and deficit and not load all this debt on our children and grandchildren. We have tried the big stuff for years, and I was directly engaged as much as I possibly could be the last 4 years, all to be rejected by the President. Let's at least look at the smaller stuff and do something to get started with this process of getting us back on track to fiscal health. What we have found is there are 52 separate programs that provide workplace training, financial instructions, and preparation for people so they can find a job--52 separate programs. You have to ask yourself, how in the world did we ever get to 52? I think some stems from good intentions. They'll say let's get a training program put together through some agency in the government that can better prepare people for employment and job opportunities. The Small Business Administration puts one together, and the Department of Agriculture says we ought to have a training program, the Department of Commerce says we should have a training program, and then a Member of Congress says, you know, that is a good idea, I would like to propose that, too. Over the years we have come up to 52 programs that provide workforce training. Obviously, this is ripe for reform and there should be consolidation for the benefit of the taxpayer. I was pleasantly surprised to learn the President's 2016 budget incorporates a measure that doesn't deal with all 52, but it starts with 6 major programs and recommends consolidation. I am not often standing here on the Senate floor commending the President for taking a positive step in dealing with our debt and deficit. He refused to do that on any kind of major basis in the last 4 years. But here is his 2016 budget, we can start with six programs to consolidate that-- programs that primarily do business and trade--affect business and trade agencies as well as other related programs. I am quoting from the budget, ``integrating the Government's core trade and competitiveness functions into one new Department.'' Well, surprise of surprises, I am here promoting something the President has put in his budget. Let me specifically state what these consolidations would affect. It includes the Department of Commerce's core business and trade functions. It includes Small Business Administration programs, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Each of these six, as outlined by the President's budget, can be consolidated into one program. What does that save? It means saving on all the rent or the purchase or the cost of the property for the government to house six different programs with six different administrators, six different sets of employees and bureaucrats and personnel, computers, phone costs--on and on it goes. They continue to metastasize and grow. Now let's put a price on this so I can add this to my thermometer here. We're in the process of trying to save the taxpayer $100 billion and last week we came up with $5.7 billion of savings. This week it is much smaller at $200 million, though it is not chump change. It is $200 million estimated savings by consolidating these 6 programs. Around here that is deemed a small number. To the people I represent in Indiana, that is a lot of money. We say, well, the government is spending that? No, the government is spending taxpayer money to provide duplication of programs. We think it will ultimately save a lot more as we go forward and define additional consolidations down the line. We are going to put a little more red on the chart to represent savings. This thermometer will keep rising and rising as I come down here and present the Waste of the Week. Mr. President, $200 million in savings can be achieved simply by consolidating programs that are duplicating each other in terms of what they are providing. We can't solve all of our country's debt and deficit problems overnight, but we can take needed steps to identify those that the government's own accounting agencies--independent of Republicans and Democrats--have identified as wasteful money. Let's get this money back to the taxpayer. Let's eliminate this money to reduce our debt so our children and grandchildren don't have to pony up more and let's end up with a much more efficient and effective Federal Government. With that, I finish this week's Waste of the Week and look forward to being here next week for another iteration. I yield back my time, if there is any left. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in morning business with permission to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, when I reran for the Senate in 2010, there were two major issues that dominated the campaign and that continue to dominate the discussion and debate in the Senate postelection. One was the Affordable Care Act, now called ObamaCare, which was pushed through without any bipartisan support. There was a lot of concern among the American people about the impact this would have on their lives. That was an issue of intense discussion and debate during that campaign. The second was the plunge into debt at a level Americans had never seen before in the history of the country. It took nearly 200 years, from the beginning of our Nation until 1981, to reach the $1 trillion debt mark. That is a lot of governing. That is a lot of growth of America. But we were essentially on a path--including expenditures for war and so forth--that didn't take us deeply into debt relative to our gross domestic product. All of a sudden, in 2010, there was the revelation that debt held by the public was rapidly nearing the $10 trillion mark--a tenfold increase in less than 30 years. It took 190 plus years to get to the first $1 trillion and only 30 years to add ten times that amount. That was a hot topic of debate during the 2010 election. During that election, the American people came out in significant numbers and said: Get to Washington and do something about this. In the background, a debt clock was ticking away, and not only on my website but clocks around the country at different times, and people were astonished at how fast those numbers were churning. That led to a pretty intense effort on the part of both parties and on the part of many organizations. I can remember Simpson-Bowles--a former Chief of Staff of President Bill Clinton along with a former distinguished Senator from Wyoming, a Republican and a Democrat together--Simpson-Bowles. The public was getting behind this--a $4 trillion, over 10 year fix to the problem. It was pretty dramatic, yet there was a lot of momentum for it. That was shot down, unfortunately, by the President when it was presented. Following that, we had the Gang of 6, a bipartisan effort, and the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction--the group of 12, 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans working diligently to try to put something together, along with outside organizations, to fix the debt. There were any number of these--the Domenici Rivlin task force--proposals that were worked on together in a bipartisan way, realizing that as the debt was continuing to accumulate it was going to have major negative consequences to the future of our children and grandchildren and perhaps even our own generation. We stand here today, having gone through all that--the Vitter committee, which I was a part of; eight of us agreeing with the President, with no staff and no press, closed room, months and months and months of negotiation--only once again to come up short. Ultimately, we sacrificed so many things we thought we needed to do just to get something going. But once again it was shot down in the end by a President who really wasn't willing to accept even the provisions he had proposed in his budget proposal that was publicly proposed. We took those and said: Can we at least do these, Mr. President? You have announced this is your initiative. But it was a no go. Well, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I then tried to work with various agencies. They all had to come before us to make their requests known for the coming year. I asked them: Do you have a plan B in place? What do you mean plan B? What is plan B all about? Plan B is the fact that mandatory spending is running away with our budget and the available amount of money for your discretionary spending is shrinking every year. So what is your plan B in terms of having less money available, whether it is for health care, for education, for building roads? All of the discretionary issues that fall under the discretionary spending that we are in control of, we no longer have control of. That is shrinking and you are going to have to do more with less. And I asked that they provide a plan B before they could get my clearance in terms of supporting their requests. They never came forward. No, we have to stay with what the President's budget is and so forth. So here we are now, over $8 trillion more than where we were in 2010, and an $18 trillion-plus deficit. Everyone knows this is unsustainable. Everyone in America knows we are careening toward insolvency, with an inability to cover even some of the most basic functions of government. I talk to agencies about a policy of triage. I suggested they separate out what they absolutely essentially have to do and we will fund it. Then part B is what they would like to do if they had the money to do it. Part C is their asking: Why are we doing that in the first place or that program is long past its need, its existence or it hasn't worked. Let's start there, with part C, and let's get rid of excess spending that has no real function going forward or it is duplication or fraud or waste or whatever. That leads me now to this poster. I have kind of gone from acting like the President's Chief of Staff to the co-chair of the ``go big guy'' in terms of what we need to do. We can't go there, but maybe we can go a little. And we are all the way down now to what I call ``waste of the week.'' Let us at least identify those things that the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office have identified as those things we know don't work, that we know are a waste, that we know are duplication, and let's see if we can get at least some start in terms of dealing with this debt. Senator Coburn took the lead on that in the last several sessions of Congress. We are going to miss him because no one can do it better than he did in pointing out and really embarrassing a lot of us in asking: Why are we funding that? I am not trying to take his place. But I did, with my staff, come up with the idea to at least let our colleagues know--those who say we can't cut a penny more, we have cut too much-- that, yes, we can cut more. We can at least do something to address this debt or have money to offset a needed funding program. So we are going to inaugurate ``waste of the week'' today. In its debut, I will go back to something I tried to amend when we were addressing the unemployment insurance issue. Ultimately, I was not able to offer the amendment thanks to the majority leader's filling of the tree and not allowing any amendments. I made a big stink about it. I didn't understand why we could not at least take that up. So waste of the week this week is the cost to the taxpayer for those in the safety net receiving Social Security Disability Insurance or unemployment insurance and getting checks from both agencies. Now, if you can prove to the appropriate government agency that you can't work, you can be eligible if you go through the process for Social Security Disability Insurance. But if you go to the Social Security Disability Insurance agency and make your claim, you can't then go to the unemployment insurance agency and say you can't work, that you can't find work, that you are able to work but that you need to get that check from that agency. What has been documented now is the fact that there are very significant numbers of people who are gaming this issue and receiving checks from both agencies. Either you can work or you can't work. You are eligible for one safety net program or the other, but not both. That totals $5.7 billion of duplication. My amendment that I had offered under the unemployment insurance extension in the last Congress was simply to say you can't do both, and we are going to put procedures in place so we can find out who is doing both. One would think this would be pretty simple, even in the paper age, but we are in the digital age. I don't understand why the people administering this can't simply take the Social Security number and plug it into unemployment insurance and say: Do you have this person's name with this Social Security number? Are they receiving unemployment insurance? Or vice versa. It ought to be the push of a button on a computer so that it is not all that costly and makes a great deal of sense. The worst they would have to do is pick up the phone and say: I have John Doe here whose Social Security number is X. He is applying for Social Security Disability Insurance. Do you have him on the unemployment role? Or vice versa. I am sorry, Mr. Doe, but you can't do both, and you are gaming the system. This duplication of benefits costs $5.7 billion. That is a pretty good savings. This is the first of what will be a weekly presentation of programs that are no longer needed, that are duplicative, where there is fraud or waste involved. I am going to bring this forward every week, and we are going to try to add it all up. We start here with $5.7 billion, and I have my spending thermometer going up to $100 billion. I think we can go much higher than that. Tom Coburn said we could, through his Wastebook and the work he has done. So we have already inked it in here. We are going to start filling this in by coming here every week. People may say: Well, that is small change. Look, $5.7 billion is not small change. In comparison to our debt, does it solve the problem? Absolutely not. It is at least a start. Can we at least not come together in sensible things such as this and at least get started in the right direction? In the meantime, I think we are still going to be pushed into situations by crisis, when no longer the countenance of the investment world in America in terms of the rate of return is acceptable, because the debt continues to accumulate. So here we are, back to 2010, back to where we were. I know it is not talked about very much at this stage. We have foreign policy issues and domestic issues we have to engage in. But the clock is ticking away, minute after minute, second after second, and it is a continued plunge of the deficit spending--borrowing money we don't have in order to pay for things we need, but also paying for things we don't need. So I will be here every week with a new proposal. We will be filling in this chart, and hopefully at least start us on the process once again of getting through to one major challenge we have here in this Senate, the Congress, and the executive branch, and that is dealing with our debt. It is generational theft. It is putting the burden on our children and grandchildren, and even on workers here today. It is holding down our economy. It is one of the major challenges this Congress has not successfully addressed and which this administration has not successfully addressed. It is kicking the can down the road to the extreme, and we do not need to forget that. We need to emphasize it. This is my small step, after many large steps that have failed, to try to continue to alert the American people and alert my colleagues that there is money we can save and spend and run a much more efficient, effective government. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I call an issue of public responsibility. More specifically, I rise to address the responsibility of both the legislative and the executive branches to deal with our Nation's out of control deficit spending. Unfortunately, the President has shown little interest in the dire fiscal situation facing our Nation, which makes it all the more important for Congress to do so. Without Presidential leadership, it is now Congress's duty to step up and take the lead. We have an obligation to be straightforward and honest with the American people about the financial challenges America faces. There was a furor over our continuing plunge into debt and deficit starting in 2009 and 2010 as we saw the spending explode with stimulus plans that didn't work and other policies that continued to drive us into debt. Unfortunately, that level of intensity and displeasure over all that was happening has subsided, but the problem hasn't gone away. It needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed now. As I said, we have an obligation as Members of this body and of the Congress to be honest and straightforward with the American people about where we stand and what we will do about it. I received a letter from one of my constituents, Steven of Martinsville, Indiana. Steven wrote to me to describe his concerns about our national debt and spending. Let me quote from his letter: As of today, the outstanding national debt is over $18 trillion. That is an overly exorbitant amount of money. It certainly is, Steven. You are right. It is an exorbitant amount of money--one we can hardly even get our minds around in terms of what $18 trillion means. Steven continued: Therefore, I would like to know our options in America. I think we as elected officials have an obligation to list those options and describe what we would do about it if we had the opportunity and the support from the President, which is not forthcoming, but perhaps it will be. Surely even the executive branch and the President have to understand the situation we are in and the consequences of not doing something about it. I am sure my colleagues received many letters and information from constituents who are concerned about the health of our Nation, from our mounting Federal debt, to our management--or I suppose I could say mismanagement of the Federal budget. Our constituents want to know what we, as their elected officials, are going to do about it. What is plain as day to Steven, unfortunately, is not so clear here in Washington because the President says we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. I can't go home to people in Indiana and tell them that we need to tax more because government is growing and needs their money, and do so without derision coming back my way because people are being taxed to death. This President has an obsession with solving every conceivable problem by asking for more revenue and more taxes. The revenue is increasing; yet we have not placed the necessary spending restraints to control this ever-growing dilemma of deficit spending. I think there is only one real solution to our problem--a solution that is absolutely necessary because we literally have tried everything else and come up short--and that solution is for this body to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. That is why I am cosponsoring an amendment to the United States Constitution that forces the Federal Government to balance its budget, limits the growth of government spending, and that requires a supermajority to pass any tax increase. Without these measures, we will not successfully deal with this problem. This is not a new idea. I served here in 1995 and again in 1997. I voted for a balanced budget amendment to limit spending and require the Federal Government to balance its checkbook. Both times, the Senate came one vote short of the necessary two-thirds to pass the constitutional amendment and send it to the States for ratification. One vote--one Member out of 100--could have voted with us, and we would have put ourselves on the path towards a balanced budget. We would not have begun to have the problems of ever-increasing debt, ever- increasing new taxes to cover that debt, and constriction in terms of spending for national priorities, such as defense and health research. Unfortunately, it didn't. When the amendment failed in 1997, our nation's debt stood at $5.36 trillion. Our debt is about three and a half times larger today. If we had had the political will to act then, we would not be faced with the financial challenges that exist today. By passing a balanced budget amendment, we can send to the States not just a message that we are serious about addressing our fiscal woes, but that we are giving them a voice, we are giving people a voice, and we are giving them the power to hold Federal spending accountable. It would be a unique opportunity to right a wrong and begin restoring our fiscal house by making the Federal Government accountable for its spending. In March of 1997 I stood on this very floor and warned about the dangers of operating outside our means. I said it then, and I would like to say it again today. I am quoting from what I said in 1997: There is no reliable check on this process of intergenerational theft. It is politically prudent, even popular, and this political calculation will not change, will never permanently change without some kind of systematic institutional counterweight, without some measure to give posterity a voice in our affairs. Nothing, in my view, will permanently change until the accumulation of popular debt is a violation of our oath to the Constitution. Perverse incentives of the current system will not be altered until the system itself is altered, until our political interests are balanced by the weighty words of a constitutional amendment. It would be a much needed balance. We need to come to this body at the beginning of each session and put our left hand on the Bible and our right hand forward and swear to uphold the Constitution, which would involve responsible spending to keep us from plunging into disastrous consequences. I mentioned earlier that Steven from Martinsville, IN, sent me this letter. What I did not mention is that Steven is a Boy Scout working toward his Citizenship in the Nation merit badge, which teaches Scouts how to become active citizens who are aware of and grateful for their liberties and their rights. We all know that Boy Scouts take this oath--the oath to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave, clean, reverent, and thrifty. If we just take one of those principles, thrifty, and apply it to our governing, then America would be in a better place. We cannot fail Steven, and we cannot fail his generation. His share of the debt will amount to more than $62,000 in 10 years. Let's not keep shifting the hard choices to our children and grandchildren. Let's not deny them the opportunity at the American dream that all of us in my generation have enjoyed. The opportunity that comes with responsible spending and a responsible government. Opportunity that comes to few people in the world. We are so privileged as Americans to have that, and we are denying that to the future. By passing this balanced budget amendment, we can honor the moral tradition of sacrificing for posterity instead of asking posterity to sacrifice for us. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to exceed--I know morning business expires in 3 or 4 minutes. I doubt I will be speaking for more than 10 minutes, but for extra time in morning business, I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, later this month, on February 27, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will run out. I think we all agree this is a critical time for our country's national security, and it is important that we fully fund Department of Homeland Security to protect Americans against terrorist attacks. But in recent days several of my friends across the aisle have spoken on this floor asserting that Republicans are trying to force a Department of Homeland Security shutdown. Nothing could be further from the truth. Essentially, their argument is that unless Republicans choose to completely agree with President Obama's egregious constitutional violation of executive power to implement major changes in our immigration laws--an issue which is clearly the responsibility of the people's elected representatives--then Republicans will be responsible for any lapse in DHS funding. So to put all this in perspective regarding this situation and the assertion that a few of my colleagues have made, let me give you some thoughts. First, let's remember how we got into this situation to start with. In 2008, a Presidential candidate by the name of Barack Obama said the following: I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I am President of the United States of America. He went on to say when he was President: America is a nation of laws, which means that as President, I am obligated to enforce that law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we can have a country that is respectful of the law but also continues to be a great country of immigrants. Here is the key statement: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that is just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. I could go on and on about what the President has said about his limitation of powers both as a candidate and as the President of the United States. Of course, he has violated and trampled on every word he has said, broken many promise he has made, and taken just the reverse position on everything he said about this issue on the Senate floor as a Senator and now as President. So Republicans have responded by simply saying: ``That is a violation of your Executive power. We think these issues ought to be debated and worked through the people's representatives, as they have been in the past.'' Because there is an association between the Department of Homeland Security funding and funding for certain aspects of immigration, Republicans thought it would be worthwhile to bring a debate to the floor so the public could hear what we have to say on this issue and so that we could make adjustments through this process. Having suffered through 6 years of this Presidency--4 years for me-- led by a then majority leader of the Democratic Party, with Republicans not being allowed to debate on the floor any significant issues that perhaps did not fit the Democratic agenda, new management has taken over here and opened up the process so that we can again be the people's representatives and speak and debate on the floor, offer amendments--winning some, losing some--and come to a conclusion. Looking for the right vehicle, the only real vehicle, that would allow us to at least debate and offer our amendments in opposition to what the President is trying to do has been totally stifled through Democrat filibustering, not even allowing us to move forward with the bill. So we are stuck here in a difficult situation, wanting to address this egregious abuse of the power constitutionally designated to the President and at the same time needing to fund our necessary security needs through the Department of Homeland Security. By not allowing us to even bring this issue to the floor of the Senate and debate it back and forth, offering amendments to address each Senator's various concerns, we neglect to move forward on legislation that addresses these two important needs: Number 1, the funding of our national security through DHS, and Number 2, the issue of the President's constitutional overreach. So we stand here frustrated with our inability to be able to go forward in the way the American people expect us to go forward, in the way this Senate has traditionally operated. Here we stand in a stalemate because one party says: ``No, we don't even want to let you talk about it.'' One party says: ``No, we don't even want to take it up, offer our amendments.'' Maybe they are afraid they will not pass. That is how it works here. The irony is that at least eight Democrats, as I count, were very critical when the President issued his Executive order regarding immigration. They basically said: ``Yes, that does exceed his powers, and he should not have done that.'' Here is an opportunity for them to weigh in with their votes instead of just their rhetoric. Yet they will not even allow that to happen. So we are caught here in this dilemma. But let me make a couple of things absolutely clear, at least from my perspective. I do not believe a departmental shutdown is the appropriate response to this issue. Funding and paying for essential functions of the Department of Homeland Security at a time when threats have never been higher is absolutely critical. So we have to achieve that by whatever means. By the same token, addressing this egregious constitutional violation and the President's broken promises relative Executive power on immigration is a key issue the American people want debated now. It needs to be debated. Both sides have agreed that we need immigration reform. But it ought to be done through the people's representatives and not through the wishes of the President of the United States when he does not have the power to make these changes. So I trust that we will be able to work through this in the next several days leading up to our recess or the end of this month when we have to come to a conclusion. We are working hard to do that. We just would like the opposing party, the Democrat Party, to allow its Members to say where they stand, to offer changes, to offer alternatives, and to offer amendments. It is important enough for us to do what we were sent here to do, and that is to represent the people in this country on the critically important issues that lie before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, each time I have taken to the floor to comment on the Ukrainian crisis which I have done often the situation in that hard pressed country is worse. Today we see renewed and even more violent Russian aggression ripping off more ragged bites of Ukrainian territory. Now, ten months after Russia's invasion of its neighbor, we are again seeing calls for more assistance to Ukraine, including providing weapons that would better enable the Ukrainians to defend themselves. But still the White House dithers--baffled again by the complexities of a world that pleads for leadership. Once again we are absent not just leading from behind, which is bad enough, but in many cases not leading at all, and the world continues to look to us for guidance and for support in dealing with some of these crises. The plight of Ukraine, torn to bits by Russian aggression, is among many foreign policy problems that have been aggravated by U.S. policy failures. Those failures have come from a White House isolated in a wasteland of confusion. The Obama administration has no coherent strategy for dealing with the world other than, in a now famous paraphrase, ``Don't do stupid stuff''--whatever that means. But not doing anything is stupid stuff, and a lot of times that is exactly what is coming out of the White House nothing. At the same time, we in Congress need to look at ourselves. We must concede that Congress also has failed to grapple with these pressing issues particularly over the last ten months relative to Ukraine. We also have failed to live up to our constitutional responsibilities. We, too, have failed to offer or compel solutions when congressional action could have helped. One way in which we can correct that record is by giving the Ukrainian crisis our renewed attention. I am happy to say, under Republican leadership, despite what we have been prevented from doing in the past ten months, we are now in a position to begin doing just that. Why Ukraine, and why does it deserve our full attention? For the first time since the Second World War, a European state has invaded and annexed the territory of a neighbor. This outrageous contravention of every possible standard of state behavior in the modern world passed by without a response that could have reversed the outrage and without the reaction that might forestall it being repeated in other states bordering on Russia. We will see what happens. Vladimir Putin's ruthless ambitions have been backed by a massive Soviet style propaganda campaign that continues to include outrageous, bald faced lying by the President of Russia and his most senior Russian officials. They continue to deny what has been obvious to the world and documented, verified facts about Russian troops and equipment flowing into Ukraine and the obvious intentions of further territorial expansion. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, invented the ``big lie'' theory that Putin is using to great effect. Hitler famously said that many people tell small lies, but few have the guts to tell really big ones, and when they do and the lies are repeated over and over, they become a new truth. Tragically, I believe we are at that stage in the Ukraine crisis. At the onset of this crisis, I drafted and introduced a resolution supporting the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and condemning Russian aggression. Later, I created and introduced the Crimea Annexation Non recognition Act and the Russian Weapons Embargo Act. I also cosponsored the Russian Aggression Prevention Act and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act. Unfortunately, none of these measures emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the previous session of Congress, all stymied by the committee's prior leadership. The only measure that did pass the Senate was one I coauthored and sponsored with Senator Durbin, a resolution condemning illegal Russian aggression in Ukraine. So the Senate's record of legislative inaction does not show a Senate that has dealt effectively with this international crisis. It is more difficult to criticize the administration for being ineffective when we in the Senate have also failed to pass almost any meaningful legislation to provide the executive branch with the advice and guidance it so obviously requires. I trust the record will improve this year and that change will begin immediately. I believe this is happening, and we will see that on this floor shortly. In the meantime, the civil war in Ukraine continues and, until last week, almost beneath the radar. With renewed vigor, separatists, newly armed and reinforced by Russia, are waging latest and continuing battles for territory in eastern Ukraine. There is little pretense at even trying to disguise the involvement of Putin's Russia in these renewed attacks. At least 6,000 people have been killed by combat in Ukraine, more than 1,000 of them since the latest so called cease fire allegedly took effect. At least half a million people are internal refugees. But the even greater ongoing tragedy is the geopolitical catastrophe. A newly aggressive Russia, driven by destructive delusions of nationalistic destiny, poses a threat to the stability of the region and to Europe itself. This is a completely self-evident reality for our allies on Russia's periphery, including those such as Poland and the Baltic States, who in the past have been crushed into nonexistence by Russian aggression. If we in Congress together with the executive branch and if the United States together with our European allies cannot respond to Putin's Russia in a way that stops this dangerous aggression, then he will have won. Putin is counting on the force of his troops and his propaganda machine to create a fait accompli to which we will have little or no reply. He is counting on our distraction and exhaustion to give him a free pass. He is counting on the political complexity of our democracy to obstruct sound policymaking. And he is counting on us to falter just at the moment when his violent aggression is paying off and his people are prepared for more. I am speaking today to urge the Senate to work quickly to change Putin's calculations about the costs he and his nation will suffer should Russia not return to rational, responsible modern state behavior. Leading in this manner will not be easy. Yes, we are besieged with foreign policy issues. Yes, providing the needed Senate response and meaningful legislative proposals is difficult. Yes, ultimately the final responsibility and leadership rests with the President. But the Senate historically has been instrumental in developing and influencing U.S. foreign policy. At this critical time, we must do so again, and we must do so again particularly because so little comes our way from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks about the President's budget, which was presented to us on Monday of this week as his annual proposal to Congress. Given our country's enormous fiscal challenges and the results of the 2014 midterm election, I think there was hope among many of us that the release of this budget would be an opportunity for the President to work with us. There was a lot of talk about working with Congress, working together. The message from the November 2014 election was that the American people want Congress to get some things done. And by the way, what about the continuing deficit? Are we going to get back to this draconian knife held over our throats, where the budget continues to put us in a position where debt and deficit continue to be the plague which is going to have enormous, negative consequences on the future of this country? Given these enormous challenges, there was really hope the President with his last 2 years, would see as part of his legacy an opportunity to work together to put us on a sound fiscal path. But much like the coach of the Seahawks on the 1-yard line, the President chose to make the wrong call. In this case, in my opinion--and I think the opinion of many--the right call would have been a plan that actually puts us on a path for a balanced budget, addresses a skyrocketing mandatory spending burden and reforms our outdated Tax Code. These are, hopefully, ideas that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. They would be in our national interest to move forward on. The time is now--with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress--to work together to achieve what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill agreed to and what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich agreed to on welfare reform and on a number of other major initiatives that had been undertaken in Congress with support from both parties. They could be addressed. But instead of pursuing a path of consensus on these issues, the President comes forward with $2.1 trillion in additional tax increases over the next 10 years. Is there any end to the obsession the President has for raising taxes on the American people? All the debate at the end of the last cycle--the previous cycle before the last cycle--was over the fiscal cliff. Let's raise taxes on the richest people in America and the high earners, and that will address the problem of taxes. But we never could get to the spending issue. So if you like government to just keep increasing: Send your tax dollars to Washington, and we will spend it. That seems to be what the President had to say. Rather than looking at the dire consequences of not addressing these long-term problems, the President proposes to spend nearly $4 trillion in fiscal year 2016, a 7-percent increase from fiscal year 2015 and about $1 trillion more than what was spent in 2008. The President wants to eliminate the very budget caps that his administration proposed and he signed into law in 2011. Well, it may be one thing to adjust those budget caps, particularly as it impacts our national defense and national security, but if that was done in conjunction with a larger proposal to address this out-of- control mandatory spending, wasteful spending, and unnecessary spending that is taking place here in Washington, that would be one thing to consider. But this simply is just more of the same, going in the same direction, proposing unbalanced budgets each year, and adding more and more to our deficit and to our debt. The President likes to talk about his veto pen and, with the release of this budget, we can only conclude that pen only contains red ink. The President has taken a pass on the golden opportunity to move forward and work together. Instead, his budget takes us in the same direction we have been going in the past 6 years without any proposal to address it in any kind of serious way. I think it is imperative that we do that. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its latest economic report and the findings were, once again, very sobering. This nonpartisan report warned that under current law our ``large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including increasing federal spending for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis.'' The CBO projects that the gross Federal debt is expected to raise another $10 trillion over the next decade. The report also says that we will spend down almost $800 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund over the next 10 years. Ten years from now, it is projected that spending on mandatory programs and interest on the debt will consume almost 94 percent of all Federal revenues, leaving far fewer funds for other important national priorities, such as strengthening our infrastructure, national defense, medical research, education, and any number of issues that could be dealt with on a national basis that would affect the future of this country. But it will not be able to be done because we have not taken these steps. Time is running out to make the tough fiscal choices now so future generations will not be saddled with an even higher burden of debt. I regret the President has yet to come forward with the serious intent of working with us to deal with one of our country's most challenging and most pressing problems with creative solutions. We will only be able to accomplish the results we need if we work together, as the President has said. But it takes his engagement if we are going to succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. If I could ask the Senator from Virginia to yield for a response without yielding the floor, and I will yield right back to him. I wish to say that the perception of the public is that this is a partisan issue. It is not. The Democratic Senator from Virginia has taken a lead in this effort and committed an extraordinary amount of effort--only to come up short. I have been privileged to work with him and a number of Members from the other side of the aisle together with Republicans, and we see the need to work together on this. We have lacked one thing. We have lacked support from the executive branch. Until we have that, I don't believe we will be able to take serious steps forward in addressing this problem. But that is not something that can be defined as one party versus another. Most of us on both sides of this aisle have recognized the disastrous potential consequences of our not taking action. I appreciate the tremendous work the Senator from Virginia has done in leading this effort, and I know we both regret that we haven't achieved success. I thank the Senator, and I yield back.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 130

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also wish to congratulate our new colleague from Alaska. Well said, and welcome. The two Senators from Alaska have dominated the start of this new session, and we are glad they have because they are bringing very important legislation and decisions to this body. So I congratulate both the senior and junior Senators from Alaska for their efforts, and I look forward to working together to accomplish what we all want to accomplish--a growing economy and better opportunities for Americans. The Senator from Alaska is certainly an important component of that in leading the way to that goal. Indiana Health Care Mr. President, this morning we received the announcement that after nearly 2 years of negotiations, the State of Indiana and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have reached a major breakthrough, an agreement that approves Indiana's Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 waiver application by allowing it to move forward and be implemented. This agreement is great news for hundreds of thousands of low-income Hoosiers and a testament to the effectiveness of the current Healthy Indiana Plan. Now an expansion of that will be made possible through this waiver. It solidifies Indiana's position at the forefront of Medicaid reform and the advancement of consumer-driven health care. Those are key words--reforming a current dysfunctional and broken Medicaid system, advancing consumer-driven health care, getting consumers into the role of making decisions about their health and not just having a government agency say: This is what you can get, and this is what you cannot get or this is what makes you healthy. The Healthy Indiana Plan incentivizes consumers to determine what is best for their own health. The Healthy Indiana Plan was originally crafted under Indiana's former Governor Mitch Daniels. He extended health care coverage to lower-income residents who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford quality health coverage. The guiding principle of the original plan was simple. Individually owned and directed health care coverage has a positive effect for individual citizens and the health care system as a whole. We have proven that giving people a stake in their own health care decisions works. Governor Daniels put it well in a 2010 Wall Street Journal article, stating: Americans can make sound, thrifty decisions about their own health. If national policy trusted and encouraged them to do so, our sky-rocketing health care costs would decelerate. The original plan had three main objectives: individual control of health care spending, taxpayer protection based on the stipulation that enrollment could not grow faster than available funding, and disease prevention by incentivizing preventive care. Then in 2013 our current Governor, Mike Pence, announced plans to reform and expand the original Healthy Indiana Plan to cover more low- income Hoosiers. Today, after more than a year and a half of negotiations, the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 has received a green light from the Obama administration. Coverage will begin on February 1 of this year. I applaud Governor Pence, and I applaud Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell for working together to move forward to continue Indiana's successful consumer-driven approach that empowers members and provides access to quality care. This agreement will expand an existing proven program to more than 350,000 low-income Hoosiers and allow the State of Indiana to end traditional Medicaid for all nondisabled adults between the ages of 19 and 64. They will be transitioned into the new plan just approved through this waiver. The answer to our Nation's health care problems is not the broken status quo of ObamaCare. Indiana has shown, and will continue to show, that reforming traditional Medicaid and offering innovative health care solutions is the right way to empower individual citizens as they seek access to quality health care. Once again, Indiana is leading the way nationally by creating State-based innovative ideas for governing. As I serve individuals and Hoosiers here in Washington, I have often turned to what I call the Indiana model as a blueprint for a more efficient and fiscally responsible Federal Government. I developed a legislative roadmap that I call the Indiana Way--a 10-point plan that takes the model of Indiana, which it has put in place and proven over the last 10 years, and the ideas that I have gathered from Hoosiers as I travel about the State--ideas and plans that will make our State and Nation stronger. Innovative and effective solutions put forward in Indiana are what is desperately needed in Washington today to put our country back on a path to economic growth and opportunity. I congratulate Governor Pence and our State on this terrific news, and I look forward to continuing to highlight Hoosier's success stories and the Indiana way. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak about a measure that is supported by Members of both sides. I was listening to the remarks by the minority whip on who commemorated the life of Ernie Banks. Remembering Ernie Banks I began school in Chicago in the early 1960s, when Ernie Banks was playing, and it is to be noted for the record that my grade point average would have been higher had I not spent so many afternoons at Wrigley Field watching the Cubs play. During that time all the games were played during the day, and as such I missed a few classes to watch our beloved Cubs. But our beloved player--perhaps the most beloved player in baseball history--Ernie Banks was a true delight. I wish I had time to speak more on that particular issue, but what I would like to direct my attention to is a bipartisan-supported measure, S. 1. The American people, in November, said: Get back to Washington. Work together, and get things done. And one of which was the Keystone Pipeline. It has bipartisan support. In fact, on the motion to proceed to this measure, 10 Democrats joined Republicans in this effort. And that is what we are debating here. Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act But I am here to talk about a second bill that certainly deserves to be in the top five of pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support and will hopefully result in passage and then sent to the President. And, hopefully, with a number of Democrats joining Republicans in these efforts, the President will take a second look at his veto threats on measures that have bipartisan support. It was Winston Churchill who said that a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity ``is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.'' Unfortunately, one of Indiana's most vibrant, growing industries is stuck in the bottom of the bucket because of a small provision tucked away in the 2,000-page ObamaCare law, which imposes on them an excise tax, a 2.3-percent excise tax on every sale they make of medical devices, hindering innovation and job creation. Medical device manufacturers in my State directly employ over 20,000 Hoosiers and indirectly support thousands of additional jobs. These are jobs that pay well above the average--56 percent higher wages than the average wage rate in Indiana. So these are top-quality jobs, providing significant employment for a significant number of Hoosiers. We have more than 300 FDA-registered medical device manufacturers in our State, and this is true of many other States. This industry is boosting our State's economy, our Nation's economy, and producing technologies that are changing and saving lives. Products ranging from wheelchair van lifts to artificial knees, hips, and shoulders, to catheters used in heart procedures, have improved or saved the lives of many Hoosiers and countless others not only in my State, not only in America, but across the globe. Since the implementation of this excise tax--passed in the ObamaCare Act in 2010, imposed in 2013--this destructive tax has caused companies to freeze hiring, lay off workers, and shelve plans to expand and build new facilities. A survey by the Advanced Medical Technology Association found that the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 workers in 2013. Look, I thought we were trying to get people back to work. I thought we were working to pass bipartisan legislation that would benefit this country and benefit those who are seeking employment. Cook Medical of Bloomington was forced to table plans for a major expansion because of the device tax. In 2013 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Cook Medical chairman Steve Ferguson stated: Cook has made the difficult decision that without repeal [of the medical device tax], we will move important new product lines outside of the U.S. Our previous plans to open up five new manufacturing facilities in American towns are now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to pay the device tax. The negative impact of this tax is not only felt by large employers such as Cook Medical, it also hurts gross sales of companies that are not making a profit but are developing innovative new ways to find benefits for the health and safety, and even the life, in many cases, of those who need these medical devices. As a result, these companies are not profitable because they are having to pay the tax. They are struggling to launch new innovations to save and improve lives. For instance, a small Warsaw, Indiana-based manufacturer, which develops and sells orthopedic implants for children, had to shelve two important projects simply because it had to use its resources to pay the medical device tax. After the tax was implemented, an employee of that company shared his story with me. Because of this tax, he said, the manufacturer is now largely inhibited from working on important new products, such as a device that reduces a wheelchair-bound child's discomfort. How ironic that ObamaCare, which the President said would increase the health benefits for Americans in coverage, is actually a barrier to improving lives and health outcomes. Last week, I joined nine of my Senate colleagues, including five Democrats, to introduce the Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act. Our legislation would eliminate this tax and has strong bipartisan support. During the last session of Congress, 79 Senators voted to pass a bipartisan amendment to the fiscal year 2014 Senate budget resolution that called for the repeal of this device tax--79 Members, 34 Democrats and 45 Republicans. It does not get much more bipartisan than that. So we are hoping that while this may not be labeled S. 2, it certainly stands in the top three or four issues that have strong support and will respond to the call of the American people in November to get back to Washington, get together, work on things with bipartisan support that are going to improve our economy and get people back to work, and get it up to the President. I hope my colleagues will see that this egregious, harmful tax, tucked-away in the Affordable Care Act, will force us to move forward, repeal it, and result in the kind of improvements the American people are asking us to address. It is long past time for Washington to stop punishing medical device innovators in Indiana and across the country. I am urging my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, throughout history a single picture has revealed the political reality of the moment. Before we had photography, there were artist depictions of Caesar entering Rome, General Washington crossing the Delaware, and Napoleon crossing the Alps. When photography came, we could see the images that defined America's role in the pivotal moments of existential threats to our values, our faiths, and our way of life: Roosevelt and Churchill sitting beside Stalin in Tehran and later at Yalta, President Kennedy at the city hall in Berlin, and Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate. The pictures that define the moment, the pictures that are seared into our minds, images that stay with us throughout our life are all powerful, and they have the common theme and the common purpose of confirming America's essential leadership role in global affairs. In all of these examples and thousands of others, we can see the world looking on Americans with respect and with the expectation that we will be there at moments critical to the world's future--they are there not just to participate but there to lead where U.S. leadership is essential to the success of the endeavor. Today, possibly the most powerful image that evokes most clearly a new reality is this image right here. Here, we see many of the world's leaders of major nations--some of the most significant, influential leaders--walking arm-in-arm down a Paris boulevard as a united protest against the grotesque barbarism that threatens us all. The leaders of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and even those who in other circumstances are not united, are united arm-in-arm, marching in front of literally millions of Europeans from France and other countries. Yet something is tragically missing. The most profound significance of this picture--which has been shown around the world and which has been seared into our minds as a defining moment--is that America is nowhere to be seen, looking at this picture, with the world's leaders, some diametrically opposed ideologically to each other but united here. And we are told that throughout the millions of people who were there, if there was the presence of an American representative, that person was not seen. If the world needs any further demonstration of America's decline and our growing irrelevance, it is this utter absence at this potentially defining moment of rallying the nations of the world to address this existential threat to the most basic of our values and our freedoms. It is not just an image problem, although the image itself carries the message, it is a substance problem. This group of world leaders and millions of others joined together in Paris last weekend to show the entire world that a threat to our principal freedoms is entirely unacceptable to us all and will be resisted by all of us, an unacceptable mortal threat to freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. My friend and former colleague Joe Lieberman wrote a piece in today's Wall Street Journal that articulately defines this threat and how we must respond. In his piece, he wrote: In rapid order, the three attacks in France last week showed more clearly than ever that the international movement of violent Islamist extremism has declared war on Western civilization's foundational values, which are embraced by so many people throughout the world. The murders of police officers, cartoonists and Jews were attacks against the West's most central values and aspirations--the rule of law, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This radical extremism will continue to threaten what we hold dear unless it is fought and eventually defeated. Millions gathered not only because 16 people died so tragically, they also gathered because those who would pervert their faith in order to lure deluded young people into violent extremism must know that we will all oppose them no matter what it takes. So how can we reconcile this vital mission with America's utter absence? No excuses are sufficient. No apologies or explanations about bureaucratic ineptitude will be enough to undo the damage caused by our absence and depicted throughout the world. Some may say the President didn't attend because of security concerns. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan said, ``Life is a security concern, you must do what's right.'' Sadly, the President's absence is an accurate reflection of how this administration sees our role in the world. During the past year we have seen a long list of foreign policy disasters--the rise of the most potent and violent terrorist organization in history; the continued disintegration of Syria; American hostages beheaded in full public view; a resurgent Taliban conducting more attacks in Afghanistan; and the Government of Iraq losing control of a third of the country, including cities and provinces soaked with the blood of American troops. We have seen our old enemy Al Qaeda and its affiliates metastasize throughout the Middle East and north Africa to mount threats from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and now even France. We have seen the Islamic State mount media campaigns that have persuaded thousands of Americans, Europeans, and others to flock to their black banners. We have seen an ill-conceived and poorly prepared Middle East peace initiative collapse under the weight of unattainable expectations. All of these problems and many others--some colossal disasters--have been aggravated by U.S. policy failures. Those failures have come from a White House isolated in a wasteland of confusion. The Obama administration has no coherent strategy for dealing with the world other than, in a now famous paraphrase, ``Don't do stupid stuff.'' Shrouded in this fog of indecision and failures, is it any wonder that we could not find the vision to join with the rest of the world to show purpose in Paris? It is deeply ironic and appropriate that the events in Paris were all generated by the power of imagery--cartoons, no less. Those events have now produced this new imagery, a picture of global common action in which the United States is tragically absent. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Madam President, here we are at the beginning of a new year and a new Congress, and I think we all feel a responsibility to do what the American people voted for in the November 2014 election, which is to come together in this body and in this Congress and work together to find sensible solutions to the very real problems facing Americans. It is no secret that the last 6 years have been pretty tough for a lot of people who are out of work or doing part-time work; kids graduating from high school, graduating from college, graduating from community schools, 2-year schools; going back and getting new training and still unable to find meaningful jobs; finding jobs that are part time, two or three of those together; parents trying to save money, pay the mortgage, save money to send the kids to postgraduate school. It has not been easy. So we have come to a point where we have legislation in a new session of Congress, with commitments on a bipartisan basis to stand together, to work together, to try to find solutions, to get people back to work and get our economy moving again. Now we come to the very first issue up for discussion and debate and hopefully passage in this new Congress--the Keystone Pipeline. This is an issue that has been going on for 6 years. The President has been obstinate in his obstruction in letting this go forward, in making a decision. Yet here we are, finally, with an opportunity to not only pass legislation which has passed the House of Representatives, again, just last week with very significant bipartisan support--but now in the Senate to take up this legislation and to move it forward tonight with this vote, to start the process to allow amendments, to allow debate, and to move forward and hopefully enjoy bipartisan support with over 60 votes and then move it to final passage and then send it to the President for, hopefully, signing. This project is the largest, ready-to-build infrastructure project in the United States. It supports tens of thousands of jobs. The estimate has been well over 42,000. It invests billions of dollars in the American economy. It increases revenue to States and local governments, all without spending one dime of taxpayer money. This is a private sector initiative that can be of great benefit to our country. It can provide meaningful jobs and has many benefits for us in the future. It is supported by Democrats, by Republicans, and by a number of labor unions. For instance, the Indiana State Building and Construction Trade Council, which represents 75,000 working Hoosiers in my State, reached out to me recently and asked me to support construction of the Keystone Pipeline, calling it ``an important job creation and energy security issue.'' They are right on the mark. They know I have been a longtime supporter of this effort, but they wanted to put it in writing. I am not sure it was necessary, and they weren't weighing this on the basis of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative; they were saying that this is good for us and we hope all of our Senators can support it. We hope it passes. This is an initiative that puts our people to work. Other labor unions, including the North America's Building Trade Unions and the Laborers' International Union of North America support this project. I mentioned the President, for 6 years, has come up with more feeble excuses in terms of why he believes this should not go forward. The last excuse was: We are in a process here and the process has to go forward. That process was waiting, apparently, on the Nebraska Supreme Court approval of the pipeline route through Nebraska, and that was his excuse for why he would have to veto it. I am sure my colleagues now have the word that the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld State approval of the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, the President's own State Department, in response to numerous calls for environmental studies-- all of which were used as an excuse for not going forward--the President's own State Department has repeatedly approved this, saying it will not have a negative environmental imprint. So what could possibly be the reason the President remains intransigent on this particular issue, because every other box has been checked? We have to come down to the inevitable conclusion that it is all political, that an extreme environmental wing of the President's own party is simply putting untold pressure on him to not go forward with anything having to do with fossil fuels or providing energy security for America from our own resources. After all, a significant portion comes from Montana and North Dakota--and the last time I checked they are in the United States--and from our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada. If this doesn't go through, we will keep importing large quantities of oil from the Middle East. We know what complications there are in terms of securing that oil and how much volatility occurs there based on what is happening today in the Middle East. So getting this product from our Northern States of North Dakota and Montana and getting this product from our friend to the north, Canada, simply makes a great deal of sense in terms of our energy security, our energy supplies, and lessening our reliance on the volatility that comes from getting oil from other sources. To conclude, let me just make it clear what it is we are trying to do. This will help the United States diversify its energy supply. It will offset our dependence on Middle East oil. It will support tens of thousands of American jobs in construction. It will invest billions of dollars in the American economy. It will increase revenue to State and local governments. It will not harm our environment, as numerous studies have indicated--all these benefits without spending a dime of taxpayer money. So after 6 years of delay, procrastination, and evermore feeble excuses, it is time for the President to make a decision. Soon he will have an opportunity to use that pen he so famously talked about not to sign a veto or to declare a veto but to sign a bill approving the Keystone Pipeline into law. I strongly support construction of this pipeline and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. I certainly will. I didn't see my colleague. I am happy to do so.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Idaho for yielding time. I don't anticipate using that much time. I apologize to my colleague from Ohio whom I didn't see standing before I rose for recognition. I very much appreciate comments made that support the legislation that is before us. However, I wish to make a few remarks relative to the start of a new Congress and a new Senate in this new cycle. This is a fresh start for us and an opportunity to reverse course after a very frustrating period of time of dysfunction in the Senate. I am hopeful and I am optimistic that all of us--colleagues, both new and old, Republican and Democrat--will be able to work together to achieve serious and positive results on the many issues before our country that we face. We have to put the days behind us when Congress careened from one cliff to the next, from one crisis to another, and fail to successfully bring forward positive legislation that addresses the problems we face. There are threats to our national security--including radical extremism such as ISIS, terrorists such as those responsible for the horrendous murders in Paris yesterday, cyber attacks, and inadequate border security. There are a number of foreign policy issues that also threaten the security of the United States. Unfortunately, many of the administration's responses to these challenges have fallen short of what is needed to successfully address these threats. Therefore, addressing these issues and protecting our homeland is paramount in this critical time. Congress has an important role to play in 2015. I want Hoosiers whom I represent to know that I will continue to engage fully in what I believe is this essential priority. Here on the home front, the 114th Congress must prioritize legislation that sets the conditions for economic growth. I consistently hear from Hoosiers at home who tell me that Washington needs to focus on building an economic climate that encourages job creation and expands opportunity for all who seek to work. We have staggered through a very difficult period of time. I believe, personally--and I think it has been demonstrated by the results--that the policies of this administration have not successfully addressed this problem, falling far short of what is needed. These concerns must be addressed. They must be addressed now. There are several areas where Republicans can work with the President and work with our colleagues to grow our economy if the President is willing to work with us. Many of these issues have bipartisan support in this Congress--items that we will be taking up very shortly, such as the Keystone Pipeline. Unfortunately, the President has already issued a slap in the face to those of us who simply want to bring up something that is supported by nearly 70 percent of the American public and has been cleared of any kind of negative environmental impact. But it has been resisted over and over with less feeble and more and more feeble excuses from our President as to why we can't go forward. Repealing the excise tax for medical devices is something with very significant bipartisan support. Seventy-nine Members of this body in the last cycle voted for repeal of this egregious tax on gross sales that has hampered growth of one of the most dynamic industries in our country and something that provides exports, revenue, and high-paying jobs that put people back to work and give them a good income. Reforming Federal regulations, that are currently preventing businesses in my State from hiring and growing, opening more markets to American-made products, and reforming our Tax Code are just a few of the issues that have bipartisan support and can be addressed in this Senate. Hopefully the President will join us in that effort. In addition to what I have listed, there are many other issues the 114th Congress must tackle. For example, just last week an employer survey revealed a majority of small businesses say Obamacare has reduced their profits, causing many of them to freeze or cut workers' wages or reduce other benefits. This survey affirms the constant flow of letters and emails I receive from Hoosiers who have seen their premiums and deductibles rise because of Obamacare. We were promised by the President that premiums would not rise--not a penny, he said. That has obviously not been the case. We have seen egregious and crippling increases in deductibles and premiums as a result of Obamacare. Now, with a divided Federal Government and in order to achieve needed results, we have no other option but to work together on responsible legislative solutions to grow our economy, tackle our debt and deficit, and keep America's homeland safe from terrorist threats. That is the challenge that is before us. That is the challenge the American people want us to address. So I look forward to rolling up my sleeves, redoubling my efforts, and getting to work on behalf of Hoosiers and the Nation, and I trust my colleagues will join in that effort and we can move forward in a way we haven't in the last few years. With that, I thank my colleague for the time, and I yield back whatever time may be remaining.