Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, similarly, as Mr. Cardin has said, what this does is to continue something that was put into the Affordable Care Act, a rise between 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before you can begin deducting to 10 percent of adjusted gross income before you can deduct. For seniors, an exemption was provided so that seniors could stay at the 7.5 percent level. This expires next year. My amendment essentially extends this for 7 years. It is to the benefit of seniors to do this. For those seniors who find excessive medical expenses facing them, this is something that was supported, obviously, by everyone across the aisle in the Affordable Care Act, and I am extending this for an additional 7 years with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support for low-income and middle-income seniors the excessive medical cost by adopting the amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if I could just respond.

Mr. COATS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for those of us who were seeking office for the Senate in 2010, one of the primary issues we were engaged with and heard from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of our citizens about was the concern over the passage of the Affordable Care Act, now called ObamaCare and now also called the Unaffordable Care Act. That was the bill that was jammed through the Senate on Christmas Eve without one Republican vote. Republicans were denied that vote because the Democratic Party controlled both the executive branch and the legislative branch, with numbers that put them in a position where they could jam anything through that they wanted without any offsets, without any amendments, without any changes, without any improvements, without any input from the other party. I think we have learned through history that when one party has total control and passes legislation, it doesn't represent what the American people want. They want debate. They want adjustments. They want the other side of the story to be told. Then they want their representatives to be able to come to a kind of consensus in terms of how we would deal with, yes, an important issue called health care for the American people. Were there needed improvements in our health care system that had to be addressed? Yes, there were. There was consensus--almost--on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, that changes could be made, but the way the American people wanted that done was for us to represent their views, to look at all the options, to have some balance, which is generally how major programs that need to be addressed successfully can be addressed successfully. Welfare reform is an example. Under President Clinton, it was a bipartisan effort, with both parties recognizing that changes needed to be made to a system that wasn't working as well as it could. By working together in a bipartisan way, we ended up with a very effective and efficient new system compared to the old system. That was not the case with ObamaCare. So throughout the 2010 period of time, when I was campaigning for office, I heard the stories from Hoosiers all across the State--big cities, small cities, rural coffee shops, factories, including employers and employees, and I heard their concerns about how this would play out. We were promised by the President that we didn't have to worry about losing our health insurance and that if we liked our current plan, we could hang onto it. That turned out to be totally false. We were also promised by the President that this would not cost one penny to the American taxpayer. Now we have the contrast to what this program has cost and will cost over a 10-year period of time, and it comes close to $1 trillion. So one penny compared to $1 trillion--there is a pretty good gap between those numbers. Those were the taxes that were inserted into the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, on the American people that were supposed to cover the cost of up to $1 trillion over a 10-year period of time. We were told by the President that if we liked our current plan, the premiums would not go up, the premiums would not increase at all, period. Trust me. Take it to the bank. Obviously, that has not been true. We have now seen the rolling out of this done in a way that only the Federal Government could screw it up. Only the Federal Government could fail after spending an extraordinary amount of money--well over a billion to roll out this thing in a totally dysfunctional way. Today, we continue to hear from our constituents about failed promises, about higher premiums, extraordinarily higher copayments, about how people have not been able to keep the doctor they had, and they are paying taxes to cover something that simply has not worked. It has been a tortuous process to get to the point where we have the opportunity of not being blocked by the other side. We have an opportunity now that will occur tomorrow to finally get an up-or-down vote on a reconciliation bill that essentially is designed to repeal ObamaCare. There have been many alternatives out there that have been tried, tested, and true in terms of how we can deal with our health care system. We are not just simply walking away, leaving people in a lurch. We are simply saying this whole thing needs to be repealed so we can build a much better way of providing health care for our citizens, and this is the opportunity. There will be all kinds of amendments. There will be gotcha amendments. I dare you to vote for that. They will be irrelevant to the final issue of what we are doing and what we are voting on. It will be clear to the American people that this is a vote strictly on the repeal of ObamaCare. You are either for it or against it. Come down here and defend it if you like it, if it has worked in your State. I haven't really heard any people coming down and singing its praises. But come down to the floor and say this is why we need it, this is why it is good, and refute what we say here. But I think it is pretty hard. I don't think I heard anybody come down and defend the statement that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it; that it won't cost you a penny, and that your premiums won't rise. We simply know that is not the case. So this is the moment. We will be able to make our yea be yea and our nay be nay, and the American people will know exactly where we stand, and I believe we will have the votes to pass this in the Senate, as we will have a vote to pass it in the House of Representatives. It will then go to the President, and the President then will know where the Congress stands and where the American people stand, if he doesn't know already. I would like to mention one aspect of it that has a pretty astounding negative impact on my State, and that is the imposition of a gross sales tax on the sale of medical devices. My State is one of the leading States in the Nation of medical device manufacturers. This tax is levied on their gross sales, not on their profits. In that sense, those small companies that are trying to develop something that will improve people's lives or save people's lives through medical device research and development and then ultimately market it have struggled because through the development process they have to pay a 2.3 percent tax on everything they sell, even if they are not yet making a profit. It has been devastating in terms of employment, in terms of research and development in this cutting edge business and manufacturing that is saving lives and improving the lives of people. So critical to this vote is the medical device tax, which is denying people the opportunity to produce medical devices that save people's lives and enhance their lives. We have more than 300 FDA-registered medical device manufacturers in Indiana. It is boosting our State's economy and producing technologies that are changing and saving lives, but since the implementation, these companies have had to lay off workers and shelf plans to expand and build new facilities. One major manufacturer had lined up five new plants in Indiana for a significant increase in employment, a significant increase in research and development and production of medical devices, simply to cover the costs they now had to pay on the tax for previous sales of their other products. It is an egregious tax that has affected many companies in the State of Indiana. In conclusion, how ironic it is that ObamaCare, which President Obama said would increase health care coverage, is actually a barrier to improving lives. So it is long past time for Washington to stop punishing the medical device industry and innovators in Indiana and across this country. I want to conclude by saying ObamaCare, a poorly written and poorly executed health care plan, is not working for the overwhelming majority of Hoosiers in my State and the majority of Americans. Remember when the then Speaker of the House said: Well, we really don't know what is in this plan; we will have to pass it before we know what is in it. We now know what is in it. We now know what the impact has been. I have been on this floor for hours over the past 5 years talking about real- life examples of impacts of this Unaffordable Health Care Act on Hoosiers. I have given personal testimonies that have been given to me by people. I have heard the horror stories of people losing their insurance, of their premiums skyrocketing, of their deductible putting them in a position where they are not able to afford health care and praying every day that someone in the family won't get sick because they can't even afford the deductible before they get the coverage. This poorly written and poorly executed health care law is not working, and the law's continued unpopularity is a testament to what it has meant for most American families: rising premiums, higher costs, decreased choices, and a poor health care process. All the innovation and things that we could have done had we worked through a normal process on this are sitting on the shelf. The time is now. It is an opportunity we have been waiting for now going on 6 years. So when we have that vote tomorrow--and despite all the chatter and despite all the attempts to define it as something other than what it is--the real vote comes down to whether you want to continue government-run health care or you want to look for a better model. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here for my now 28th ``Waste of the Week.'' I have been coming to the floor of the Senate for 28 weeks pointing out government waste. Some in this Chamber say we can't cut a penny more. We are down to the bone. We are far from it. This is just a small effort, having been shot down, in terms of anything larger to do to deal with our fiscal situation, because the White House simply does not want to engage in it. We at least ought to be able to take steps as a body to eliminate the kind of wasteful spending that takes place on a daily basis in Washington. I have come down once a week to do this. I could come down every day, I could come down every hour and point out something in this vast array of Federal Government that never stops growing that simply falls in the category of waste, fraud, and abuse. So far we are well over our $100 billion goal of accumulated waste. Today, this is No. 28. Specifically, this particular waste of the week is facilitator fraud in the Social Security disability insurance fund. What is the facilitator fraud? Facilitator fraud is when individuals with specialized knowledge use system as a means to fraudulently, illegally qualify people to receive SSDI benefits. They look for claimants either by putting out ads or using social media or word of mouth: Look, you too can get checks from the Federal Government even if you are not disabled because we have figured out how to qualify you. We will help you process these forms. We have connections with doctors and medical providers who will be able to give us written information, even though it is fraudulent and illegal, that you can use to justify with the Social Security Administration to qualify for Social Security disability. Then, when those payments start, the facilitators get a percentage of that or they have worked out some kind of agreement that you will pay us this amount of money if we can get you the claim. Once disability payment is made, financial compensation to the facilitator is in place, and there is a vicious cycle of fraud and abuse. So instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, Peter and Paul are robbing the Federal Government together and reaping the benefits. Over the last 5 years, the Social Security Administration has seen an amazing increase in fraudulent activity associated with facilitators. The estimate is potentially 1 percent and perhaps even more--we haven't tied this down yet--of SSDI payments are affected by facilitator fraud. We have taken a rough estimate of what this would amount to over a 10- year period of time and dropped $.4 billion. We think at least $10 billion over 10 years is a conservative estimate of the waste of taxpayers' dollars through fraudulent, illegal means. Last month the Social Security inspector general, Patrick O'Carroll, testified before the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, and shared his concerns about this question. He said, ``There are people out there in positions of trust that the agency relies on for information. . . .'' as to determining whether a claim is a legitimate claim for coverage. He said, ``And if those people [whom we rely on] decide to defraud the government''--by sending in false claims, backed up by false medical support, the taxpayer is being taken to the cleaners. ``We have found that in some cases the former Social Security employees''--that have left the employment of the Federal Government-- ``that understand the way the system works then go into conspiracies with unscrupulous medical providers and attorneys, where they will use improper information and facilitate getting in so that a person will get on benefits,'' and they get the payment and the rewards. Last year, a San Diego-area psychologist confessed to charging his patients $200 each to fabricate medical evidence to support their disability claims. Imagine getting up in the morning, going to your desk, you have the credentials of a doctor--in this case a psychologist--to issue an opinion as to what the claimant's medical condition is, and then participate in this cycle of fraudulent activity and be paid for it. That is his job. That is what he does every day. Fortunately, we caught him, and that is how we know about this. In August of 2013, Federal law enforcement officials and the Puerto Rico Police Department arrested 75 people in Puerto Rico and dismantled a large-scale disability fraud scheme involving physicians and a claimant representative who is also a former Social Security Administration employee. So not only are individuals doing this, but there are groups of individuals who are working through a system. These are just two small examples of what is happening. To give some credit, the discovery of this has produced some progress in terms of addressing this problem. The most recent budget deal reached in the Senate included increased funding for what is called the Cooperative Disability Investigation Units, which investigate suspicious disability claims and hopefully prevents fraud before it happens. Additionally, the Social Security Administration's regional Disability Fraud Pilot Program works specifically on facilitator fraud across the country trying to identify those high-dollar, high-impact cases involving third-party facilitators conspiring with claimants to defraud the Social Security Administration. It is a pilot program. I don't know why we haven't had that program in place from its very inception. Every agency distributing funds for individuals should have as a component of that agency an investigative process for fraud, waste, and abuse because-- you name the program writing checks to claimants, and I believe we will be able to find those that are fraudulently taking money out of taxpayers' wallets. We are going to keep coming here every week putting the spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse. Today we add another $10 billion to the total, which keeps growing and growing. Now it is a total of $128,812 billion of documented waste, fraud, and abuse. This is not something we make up. This is not something we read about in the paper. This is something where agencies of the Federal Government, which have accountability and responsibility to try to dig in and find this abuse, provide information on a regular basis, but it is something taxpayers simply cannot afford, should not be obligated to pay, and highlights the fact that we have a government growing beyond its means. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 3 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 2:45 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Tax: OECD BEPS & EU State Aid.''

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Puerto Rico's Fiscal Problems: Examining the Source and Exploring the Solution.''

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, the Presiding Officer has been in the chair before when I have done my waste of the week. This is my 27th ``Waste of the Week'' this year, where I come to the floor of the Senate and take a documented waste, fraud, or abuse within the Federal Government, expose that abuse, and inform taxpayers that their hard- earned money is being wasted by this Federal Government. We are taking those items that have been documented by government accounting agencies, by agencies that have been charged with the responsibility of looking into how we spend the taxpayers' money and alerting us to problems of fraud, waste, and abuse. So No. 27 waste of the week is up this week, and this week it involves the issue of paid leave. This is an executive policy which applies to departments and agencies across the Federal Government. Specifically, what I wish to do today is highlight the $31 million in payments to Federal employees who have received paid leave for over a 1-year period of time. For Federal employees, paid administrative leave is typically a paid, excused absence that is separate from vacation time. It includes things such as jury duty or time to allow a person to transition home after an overseas deployment or post. Some agencies also use paid leave when making personnel evaluations. This could include things such as investigations into alleged misconduct, security threats, and similar situations where the employee should be restricted from the worksite while the investigation occurs. Many of these are legitimate. Many of these fall into this category. But being given paid leave for over a year? First, it raises the question, What is going on here? This is way beyond the norm. Secondly, shouldn't we have some documentation as to why this takes place? Currently, Federal agencies across the Federal Government have the authority to set their own policies regarding administrative leave, and this leads to a variety of different policies from agency to agency. Why are there discrepancies among agencies in both length of time and the frequency of the granted paid leave? What is particularly troubling to me is that an audit by the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, found that 263 employees have received paid administrative leave for over a 1-year period of time--more than 1 year. Most of us expect, yes, OK, 2 days off or a week off because I have been selected for jury duty. I have a citizen's and a resident's obligation to do that. Paid leave is justified on that basis. For someone returning from a post overseas, to get resettled, paid leave is justified. There are some other justifications. But over a year? Paid leave for over a year and $31 million paid out to people who haven't worked for over a year? Something needs to be looked into regarding how and why that takes place. Last month, the Washington Post told a story about how this issue has persisted within the Department of Homeland Security even after the report was issued. The Post article states that ``close to 100 DHS [Department of Homeland Security] employees still are being paid not to work for more than a year.'' So I think the question we need to ask ourselves in response to this report is why? Why did the Federal Government spend $31 million to pay 263 employees not to work for more than a year? And what is the justification for the 1-year paid leaves? Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office was unable to disclose the specific details as to why these 263 individuals were on paid leave for over a year. However, there are public reports that give examples of employees who have continued to receive paychecks for over a year. The Washington Post again reported the case of a former high-level Environmental Protection Agency employee who pretended he was a member of the Central Intelligence Agency for years. This employee collected paid leave under the pretense he was conducting top-secret work for the CIA when, in fact, he was home exercising and pursuing a personal research project. He effectively, according to the Post, stole $900,000 from taxpayers for work he never did. That included his salary and bonus. He was actually paid bonuses. The man was paid a bonus payment for not working--defrauding the Agency he worked for. The good news is that they caught him. The bad news is that it took 2\1/2\ years to figure out something was going on. An article in the Washington Times details a 4-year case where an employee at EPA was fired for ``sending a `hostile email' and making inappropriate statements that `caused anxiety and disruption in the workplace.' '' That employee was ultimately removed from the EPA a second time but only after he received 1,496 hours of backpay. And on and on it goes. I could stand here for a long time talking about examples of paid leave to personnel totaling $31 million for payments of paid leave for over a 1-year period of time. It is not just the EPA. I am not picking on one agency. Every agency in government has these policies. GAO estimates that there are some bad track records for these agencies. For instance, the Department of the Treasury has 25 employees on paid leave for over a year and the Department of Veterans Affairs has over 46. And even more disturbing is the fact that the GAO investigation found that Federal agencies don't have sufficient documentation for the paid leave, if they had any documentation at all. How can you put someone on paid leave, how can you make payments for over a year and have no documentation as to why you are making the payments? Coming to the floor with these waste of the week, fraud-and-abuse situations, it is hard to comprehend how these things go on. The ingenuity of those who are committing fraud and those who oversee agencies that are paying this out is stunning. I want to make it clear that I am not against paid leave. There are many valid cases. But taxpayers deserve to know why Federal agencies are paying their employees not to work for over a year without sufficient documentation for taking such action. In fact, this ought to go for all paid leave, whether it is for 1 day, 1 month, or 1 year. Particularly, though, what ought to be ringing an alarm bell is someone who is on the record as receiving paid leave for several months or over a year--and I am only documenting that which was documented for over 1 year. Who knows how much this would total if we looked into every agency's policies and found out that they weren't documented and that they couldn't prove that the paid leave was legitimized. I need to give credit where credit is due. The Office of Personnel Management has finally recognized that this is a costly issue and has moved to take steps to address this misuse of taxpayer dollars. This summer, the agency announced guidance on what does and doesn't constitute paid administrative leave. I urge OPM to follow up now and ensure that all Federal agencies are implementing these recommendations. But why did it take us so long? Why do we have to have an investigative report? Where is the management? Where is the management in these agencies that oversees this and does not allow this to happen? Why do we have to wait for the Government Accountability Office to come in and audit these agencies and find this unbelievable amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that takes place? So taxpayers are on the hook for another $31 million of waste. We add that to our ever-growing total of waste, fraud, and abuse, now reaching well over--almost $119 billion. And we have Members down here talking about a program that needs funding because it is an essential program, but we don't have the money to do it. Others come down and say we can't cut a penny more from any of the programs we have--and that is another issue--and yet we continue to waste this kind of money. Next week it will be item No. 28 as we go forward exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, taking hard-working taxpayers' dollars at a time when the economy is not doing all that well. This is something which continues to be a noose around the Federal Government's neck and which needs to be addressed. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do agree we should be debating what is happening in the world, particularly on the issue of ISIS and its impact not only on America, not only on Europe but on the world, and that is what I intend to do. We have all witnessed the horrific attacks in Paris and this unprecedented form of evil that we have seen disrupt the lives of free people. All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--all Americans stand in solidarity with Paris and the French people. This isn't just an attack on Paris. This is an attack on the free world, the civilized world. Don't just take my word for this conclusion because ISIS has already made such a declaration; that is, we are coming after you. We are coming after all those who don't abide by our messianic message of our purpose in the world to destroy you because you don't agree with us. Sadly, the tragedy we have seen in Paris reinforces that the battle against terrorism and extremism will not only be fought in the Middle East. The United States and Western nations are dealing with escalating security challenges that cannot be resolved through diplomacy and are not being resolved by the current strategy of this White House. A headline today in the Wall Street Journal is: ``Pressure Grows for Global Response.'' We, the United States, need to show the world that threats to our principal freedoms are entirely unacceptable. Unfortunately, President Obama continues to fail to provide the American people with the leadership we so desperately need. Consider his response yesterday to the tragic events in Paris versus the response of the French President. The French President, Francois Hollande, said: France is at war. We are in a war against jihadist terrorism, which is threatening the entire world. I want to repeat that: France is at war. We are in a war against jihadist terrorism, which is threatening the whole world. Virtually at the same time, President Obama, in a shockingly dismissive tone, doubled down on his so-called strategy to deal with this global threat. What has his strategy to date accomplished? Well, ISIS has expanded into more than half a dozen countries. They are not contained as the President said. Ask the people in Paris if ISIS is contained. Ask the people who have been subjected to attacks inspired by ISIS across the world: Is ISIS contained? I don't think so. Time after time, the President has shown he simply doesn't get it. In 2012, he boasted Al-Qaeda was on the path to defeat. In 2014, he dismissed the Islamic State as the ``JV team,'' saying that ISIS ``is not a direct threat to us nor something that we have to wade into.'' Last Thursday he said, ``I don't think [the Islamic State] is gaining strength'' and saying ``we have contained them.'' What will it take for this President to wake up and see what is happening around the world as a result of the ever-expanding threat of ISIS terrorism? The President did say yesterday that if people have other ideas to bring them forward. So what I would like to do is offer a few suggestions for the President to consider. In fact, I actually brought forward suggestions over a year ago, but of course none of them have been accepted or acted upon by the President that I am aware of. When I first addressed this subject in the summer of 2014, I outlined several areas in which urgent action was required. First, and more important, I called for the administration immediately to articulate a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. We have a problem out there. Put a plan together to address the problem and do it in a comprehensive way so we have a goal to achieve and a strategy to work out to achieve that goal. This comprehensive plan has been entirely absent from this Congress and from the American people. What we have seen instead are incremental responses--responses that contradict what the President had earlier said--to events that have taken place behind the curve, not ahead of the curve, too little and too late. I called for efforts to reach out to nations across the globe to work together to defeat ISIS, including working with Islamic states and communities to oppose this outrageous ISIS perversion of the Islamic faith. I want to say that, again, for those who simply say this is a decision that affects America only, all we are calling for are our boots on the ground, that is entirely wrong. The President should know it, and I think he does know it. I, among many, have called for efforts to reach out to nations across the globe to work together to defeat ISIS, including working with Islamic states and communities to oppose the outrageous ISIS perversion of the Islamic faith. I called for a diplomatic effort to persuade Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other regions to join with us to resist more forcefully ISIS aggression. Last year I called for much greater security assistance for our potential partners in the fight against ISIS. The United States should move quickly to provide more arms, training, and other requested assistance to Iraqi Kurdistan's Peshmerga forces--proven fighters who are willing to stand up and confront ISIS. They needed our support. They needed weapons from us. They needed training and guidance from us, but they were ready to engage in the fight. I said we also needed to find effective ways to support and directly arm the reliable, vetted Sunni tribes and Sunni leaders in Iraq who are essential partners in combatting ISIS extremism that ultimately are Sunni Islam's greatest threat. It is true, the question of where have they been, where are they. We need more than just sending a check to cover payment for somebody else to fight a proxy war. We need their engagement. They are in the crosshairs of ISIS. Why haven't they stepped up? Where is the flocking to the center square of town saying enough is enough? Where are the imams saying that this is a perversion of our religion? Where are the people in the crosshairs of ISIS simply rising up together and saying we need to address this? As I said, we also need to find effective ways to support the Sunni tribes and Sunni leaders. Those efforts have been slow, indirect, and insufficient. I called for us to provide lethal assistance to the Free Syrian Army. The administration's effort in this regard was an absurd $500 million, multiyear effort to train and arm 40 fighters, most of whom were promptly killed or captured. Yes, I called for increased specialized military action by our own Armed Forces. I, with many others, am willing to stand here and say enough. I have called for increased specialized military action by our own Armed Forces-- intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and special forces--not a massive invasion. This has to be a global effort, as I just talked about. It has to include Sunni nations. It has to include Muslims who believe their faith and their culture is being brutally perverted by ISIS. It is clear ISIS cannot be defeated without U.S. participation. Nations of the world look to the United States to either have their backs or to work with them to stand side by side. We have capabilities and capacity that other nations don't have. Coalitions cannot be formed without our engagement. Our bombing campaign--this strategy of bombing against ISIS targets--has been far from adequate. There have been an average of just a handful a day, many of which have planes turning around and landing back at the airfield with bombs still attached to their wings because they simply haven't had the kind of targeting and directing to ensure that the rules of combat are confirmed. Contrast this anemic bombing campaign with the bombing campaign before the first Gulf War, which was several thousand sorties a day. In Bosnia it was several hundred a day. Clearly, our anemic air strategy is not defeating ISIS. Frankly, military history shows that air action only cannot achieve the goal of defeating an enemy. Lastly, I called on the Obama administration and Congress to reassess our border security and do whatever is necessary to make us stronger. One element of that effort is legislation I introduced earlier this year, a bill that would enact changes to the Visa Waiver Program and provide additional tools to enhance border security--changes that, in my opinion, are absolutely necessary to fill and plug a gaping hole in our border security. Let me talk about that for a moment. The current Visa Waiver Program allows citizens from several dozen nations to travel to the United States without a visa. They are citizens of these nations. In order to expedite the travel process, we entered into the Visa Waiver Program. That works fine if you don't have a situation like the one that exists today, with ISIS and other forces--Al-Qaeda and others--trying to bring people into the United States, to plant people here to carry out evil acts against American people. My bill would amend the Visa Waiver Program by tightening existing pre-travel clearance procedures and making them more focused on counterterrorism efforts. We have to now recognize the reality that exists here in terms of abuse of the Visa Waiver Program or the possibility of abuse and inserting terrorists into the United States. The bill would ensure stricter compliance with information sharing agreements by those countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program and suspend their participation if they do not come into compliance at a 100-percent level. We can't afford any glitches. We cannot afford 99 percent. We have to go all the way. The bill would also authorize the Secretary of State to revoke any passport issued to a U.S. citizen who is suspected of engaging in terrorist activities and would update the definition of ``treason'' to include support of terrorist organizations. When introducing this, I remember the response: Oh, that is too tough. Nothing is too tough these days to keep Americans safe. We need to implement these provisions that I introduced many months ago, because I believe it is a solution that addresses the real and growing threat of terrorist attacks carried out by individuals with Western passports. Unfortunately, these things I have mentioned and have introduced earlier have not been adopted in any meaningful way. Now, a year and a half later, we are in a much more difficult position, with ISIS stronger and expanded to new areas and new countries. The threat to us all is comprehensive, multifaceted, and nearly global. It demands a global, comprehensive response. So I would urge the President to seriously consider these and other proposals, and I would like to mention one other proposal this morning. In addition to what I have previously stated, I believe it is now time to consider whether NATO should take on a vital new mission. NATO responded in Bosnia in 1994 and brought about peace. It can do so again. When I served as ambassador to Germany for 4 years, I had direct contact with NATO and NATO nations, and I know the accumulation of resources, of training, of capability that is available through NATO, and it is a multi-nation, comprehensive coalition. It can play a vital role in dealing with this terrorist threat. We need a comprehensive, realistic, articulate plan if we are going to destroy ISIS, and NATO action should be part of that plan, whether or not France invokes the article 5 collective defense provision of the NATO treaty--which I think they should do, and perhaps they will do-- which requires all NATO nations to come to the support of and do what is necessary to address a threat to one of the nations. If one of the NATO nations is threatened, we all stand together to deal with it. Former NATO Commander ADM James Stavridis issued his own six-step plan for NATO engagement and leadership to destroy ISIS, and we should look at that and take it seriously. He suggests NATO should assign one of the major alliance commands to lead the operational planning for forceful military efforts against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq and bring all the alliance resources to bear. In addition, he suggests our NATO allies should be joined in this effort by other nonmember European states, such as Sweden and Finland, which are similarly threatened by ISIS terrorism. Most importantly, he said NATO must work creatively to bring in the regional powers, such as the Kurdish Peshmerga, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states in a broad coordinated effort against ISIS under NATO leadership. This is the mechanism and this is an organization that is trained, has the equipment, has the capability, and can form the coalition necessary with our Arab friends and neighborhoods--the Saudis, the Sunnis and others--that need to be a part of this if we are going to be successful. NATO's efforts against ISIS, Admiral Stavridis says, should also include assistance to Turkey--after all, Turkey is a NATO member--to better secure their borders against the flow of jihadists in and out of Syria. This is NATO at its best and is something I think should be seriously considered by this White House as a way of moving forward to develop a coalition to address the great threat we are facing. Let me now say one other thing, because Admiral Stavridis also suggests the possibility of forming some type of a coalition with Russia. We are seeing a strong Russian response today--last evening-- once it was determined and proven the Russian airliner was brought down by a bomb and by ISIS. ISIS has taken credit for it, and ISIS will receive the wrath of the Russian military as a result, in direct contrast to what we have done for attempts on our own people. I am not a big fan of Putin. I am not a big fan of the current Russia government. I spoke out strongly about Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, and have strongly advocated for Russia's diplomatic isolation. In fact, I so strongly advocated for it that Russia put me on a list of seven people who are banned from entering Russia for life. Well, I have been to Russia, and I don't need to go back. So it is no big deal. Apparently it was a big deal to them. But now we are facing an emergency situation. Russian forces are deployed in Syria. Russian efforts need to be coordinated with NATO efforts, if we go the NATO route. We are already coordinating in terms of some of our flights. As we learned in 1941, national emergencies can create strange bedfellows. Whatever option is considered, the irreducible minimum is real: determined U.S. leadership. This tragic civil war and escalating terrorist threat have continued and grown much too long without an effective American response. Oh, yes, we have had a response--mostly rhetorical--but clearly a strategy that has not succeeded, and clearly something that is not deterring ISIS from growing stronger and spreading further. It simply has not been effective. So whether it is through NATO, whether it is through a coalition of the willing, vigorous American leadership is absolutely essential for the future of all of us. In conclusion, let me say this. In 2014, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said: Our last message is to the Americans: Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching. This is the enemy we are dealing with. This is not some vague threat; this is a direct threat. We have seen how they carry out their direct threats, and we stand in the crosshairs. And, yes, it is very possible and probably very true that they are with us here now, watching, waiting, planning, contriving for another Paris, for another Baghdad, for another attack--hopefully none, but something that could be possibly much greater than what we saw in Paris. They have created their homeland in Syria, but they have told us what we don't want to hear, but which is probably true, that they are here and they are watching and they are waiting. So the question is, does President Obama grasp what we are up against? Last year he laid out the goal of defeating ISIS, but President Obama still has not put forward the comprehensive strategy to accomplish that goal, and yesterday he doubled down on the same policies that have led to our current foreign policy failures. The effort to defeat ISIS will be successful only with leadership from the President of the United States. Let me say that again. The effort to defeat ISIS will be successful only with the leadership from the President of the United States. So, President Obama, as Republicans, as Democrats, as Independents, as Americans, we desperately need for you to provide that leadership at this critical time. President Obama, are you up to the job or do we have to wait another year to put a leader in the White House? Mr. 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, I am back on the floor once again for my ``Waste of the Week.'' I have been doing this for well over 20 weeks-- highlighting waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' money. It is said we cannot afford to cut another dime, that programs are too important. I question that since the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the congressional accounting office have all looked at various Federal programs and said: Why in the world are you doing this in the first place? It is no longer relevant. It is a waste of money. The function has already been taken care of. Today we are going to highlight yet another situation where this money ought to be going into either higher priority uses--such as Department of Defense or funding soldiers or veterans or something such as that--or not take it from the taxpayer in the first place. And as we document each week, our account keeps growing in terms of money that falls clearly into the category of waste, fraud, and abuse. Today's situation is a little bit different because the money is not being spent. Then the question is, OK, it is reserved for something, right? It was, but that action has been fulfilled. So why is that money still sitting there and who is using it or if it is not being used, why isn't it redirected and returned to the taxpayer? Let me talk about this program. Throughout our Nation's history, the United States has pursued various paths of energy development in order to power our communities. One of the ways we have pursued energy production is through uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors. Today, that is not a popular way of providing power. By the way, it is totally environmentally pure. There is no carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, or any other emission issue here that is harmful to our environment. Yet we have suspended all this for various reasons--mostly the concern about a situation where it gets out of hand, even though today's technology can essentially provide safety for that. Nevertheless, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the United States Enrichment Corporation, USEC, was authorized and stood up to provide more privatized uranium enrichment services for the U.S. Government and utilities that operate these nuclear powerplants. And there are several dozen operating in the United States. Previously, this service was provided by the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies, but now this law appropriated taxpayer dollars to a newly established USEC Fund, which is a revolving fund in the Treasury to carry out the purposes of this new organization, the United States Enrichment Corporation. The law also appropriated taxpayer dollars to the fund revolving in the Treasury to carry out their purposes. Let me describe this fund in a little more detail. Four years after the creation of the fund, Congress passed the USEC Privatization Act, which authorized the USEC's sale to the private sector--a pretty good move, I think. There are a lot of things the private sector can do more effectively and efficiently than the Federal Government. This was a privatization effort that was successful. It transitioned from a Federal to a private corporation, and today it operates as a private company, not a Federal company, separate from the Federal Government, under a new name; therefore, it is no longer under the control of the Federal Government. What has become of the money that was funded? The USEC Fund was authorized to pay for the expenses of the USEC's privatization and for the environmental cleanup expense for ``disposition of depleted uranium stored at government-owned enrichment plants operated by the USEC.'' That was a logical objective. We did not want this depleted uranium stored onsite. We needed to dispose of it. So we took the money in the fund and used that to take care of the uranium that was stored and that needed to be disposed of. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said that the ``purposes for which the USEC Fund was authorized after privatization have been fulfilled, and the Government Accountability Office has not identified any other purposes for which the USEC Fund is currently available''--in other words, mission accomplished. Mission complete. No other use of the fund has been authorized, and so the money is just sitting there. There is a pot of money sitting in the fund that has no federally authorized use. Whatever you want to call it--a zombie fund, a fund that simply has no purpose--its life is over, yet it lives on. How much is in this fund? The GAO found that the USEC Fund's remaining balance is expected to be over $1.6 billion in 2015--not exactly small change. Predictably, the Department of Energy says: Ah, there is a pot of money. Why don't we use it for something else? Well, it is not authorized for anything else. It was money contributed from the Treasury to this fund for a specific purpose, and that was to clean up the environment, to dispose of the uranium, and to privatize the program. The GAO report further stated that ``DOE's effort to utilize USEC fund moneys instead of general fund appropriations to support a research and development effort would diminish transparency in budgeting.'' In other words, the Department of Energy is saying: Oh, we have a slush fund over here. Let's use it for something. Well, transparency and accountability are important when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, and every one of us here in the Senate ought to be cognizant and recognize how critical and how important it is to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely, effectively, and efficiently and not request it from them if it doesn't have that purpose and achieve that purpose. By the same token, if we have a pot of money--$1.6 billion--sitting in a fund that has no authorized use, that ought to be returned. That ought to be returned to the taxpayer in one of two ways: one, directed to an absolutely essential need that only the Federal Government can provide, or two, it ought to go back to the taxpayer. It shouldn't be taken from the taxpayer. So since the authorized purposes of the USEC Fund have been fulfilled and Congress has given no new authority or appropriation, the money needs to be rescinded. I am not the only one supporting this course of action. The GAO recommends that Congress rescind the entirety of the $1.6 billion, and Congress has attempted to rescind this pot of money before. In fact, the House of Representatives included language in a 2014 appropriations bill to do so. But it is now time to actually return the money. There are attempts being made. If we can successfully achieve this, we can save the taxpayer--by rescinding this $1.6 billion, if we do that, we will then add up to our ever-growing total of wasted, abused, and fraudulently used money. In this case, this appropriated money--money sitting there waiting to be returned and rescinded--will bring our total to almost $119 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse. That ends the narrative this week, and we look forward to next week and bringing forward yet another waste of the week. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. Waste of the Week Madam President, this is my weekly ``Waste of the Week'' speech. It is time for another one. Let me just say up front this involves Department of Defense spending. Now, I am a strong advocate. I am an Army veteran. I have served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for nearly two terms. I am a strong advocate of a strong national defense, but it doesn't mean we give a blank check to the Department of Defense. It means we have to scrutinize their expenditures and their engagement in spending taxpayers' dollars just as carefully as we scrutinize every other agency. Everybody is involved in terms of finding the best and most effective way of using taxpayer dollars, hopefully without going into debt to do so and hopefully directed to those issues of priority and necessity that we have to fund. The Department of Defense of course is one of those. Although, as I said, it doesn't mean they get a blank check. I am deeply disappointed that my Democratic friends across the aisle have denied us the opportunity to take up the Department of Defense appropriations bill, where we would have the opportunity to offer amendments to strike money or to save money that could be used for essential, necessary efforts in spending by the Department of Defense. Clearly every agency has to do some triage if we are ever going to get control of our out-of-control budget and our out-of-control plunge into deficit spending year after year, with the debt ever growing. I just heard today that we are now at $18.5 trillion in debt, and that is going to come back to haunt us in future generations. So the triage involves defining what is essential. Is this an essential expenditure that only the Federal Government can make? Defense spending falls into that category; that is, something that we can't leave to the States. Secondly, there is a lot we would like to do that may be necessary but is not urgent, a priority, or essential--when we have the money to do it. The third category is, Why in the world are you doing that in the first place? How can we define those items that are not necessary and take those funds and use them? Either give them back to the taxpayer or put them toward something that is essential rather than continuing to raise the funding, keeping all of the ``why we are we doing this in the first place?'' stuff funded year after year. We are not being given the opportunity to do that. It is beyond this Senator's comprehension that, having established the caps with the agreement that passed last week--which I couldn't vote for because it kept adding more to our debt and didn't fully address the real problem of entitlement spending. But nevertheless, the decision was made, and we had to pass it. Now it is simply a process of allocating the money within the limits of how much can be spent. That is what we are supposed to be able to do, of course, in committee. We are also supposed to have the opportunity as Members of the Senate to bring forward amendments, to bring forward policy issues, to debate on the floor, and hopefully to improve the bill, making it better, more cost effective, and efficient. OK. Here we go--waste of the week. I think this is the 20th-something time I have been on this floor during this year. Every week the Senate is in session, I come and do the waste of the week. This week it addresses, as I said, the Department of Defense. I want to highlight what a recent inspector general Department of Defense report found: over $40 million of overspending by the Department of Defense to build one gas station in Afghanistan. The special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction found that the Department of Defense Task Force for Stability and Business Operations actually spent $43 million on a single natural gas fueling station in Afghanistan. The station was originally projected to cost $3 million--and we will talk about how ever got to $3 million, let alone how in the world this could have gotten to a total of $43 million. According to the IG report, DOD spent this money ``to fund the construction and to supervise the initial operation of the station. Specifically, it spent approximately $12.3 million in direct costs''--I guess that was building the station--``and $30 million in overhead costs.'' We are digging in to find out what those overhead costs were, but somebody came away with a pretty good profit margin just by submitting bills for $30 million in overhead costs which apparently were approved and spent and given to the contractors. To make matters worse, the inspector general's office found that the reasons the gas station needed to be built in the first place were not legitimate. They said there is zero evidence that the Department of Defense conducted the prior research necessary to identify potential obstacles before initiating this $43 million project. Wouldn't you think somebody would have said: Wait a minute. What is this for? Where is it going to be? How much is it going to cost? Is it worth it? What is the projected spending? Is it going to be worth doing this? Does it make any sense? The IG office said there was zero evidence in the DOD's research that there could be a potential obstacle in going forward with this. One of those obstacles is Afghanistan doesn't have the pipeline infrastructure to get the gas to the gas station. Another key obstacle is that on average it would cost more to convert a vehicle in Afghanistan to use compressed natural gas than the average Afghan earns in a single year. What all this means is that the Department of Defense built a gas station that doesn't consistently have gas or customers, all for $43 million. Most outrageously, the original $3 million allocated to this project was over and above the international norm for building this kind of compressed natural gas station. The International Energy Agency analyzed global construction costs for similar fueling stations and found that construction costs ranged from $200,000 to $500,000 per station. It did acknowledge that in nonindustrialized countries such as Afghanistan, costs would be on the high-end. OK. The high-end is $500,000. It still raises the question, If nobody is going to use it or we can't get gas to the station to put into the vehicles, why are we doing this in the first place? It also raises the question, Why did it cost $3 million in projected construction costs when the average high- end is $500,000 per station in places like Afghanistan? What do you get for $3 million? What they say you get for $3 million ended up costing $12 million, and then the final bill is $43 million. What do you get? As you can see on this photograph, you get one of these out in the desert in Afghanistan. It is a little bit blurry. There is the structure. You have some pumps here. They actually did want to prove that some cars use this, so there are a couple of vehicles pictured out there in the desert. There is a telephone pole, I guess, out there. You can see we are not talking about the middle of a city. So that is what you get. That is what you get, folks, for $43 million of expenditures. This is almost beyond the pale. It is almost something that you come down here and say: This can't be true. You can't make this stuff up. This is an example, though, I am afraid, of a lot of other overspending which we are going to dive into. But this one example alone illustrates that someone is making some very bad decisions and that taxpayers' dollars were not, at the least, properly stewarded by someone. American taxpayers deserve an answer to this fraud, to this waste. Why did we pay $43 million to build this gas station when there was no research justifying building it in the first place? They want an explanation of why this particular project was $40 million over budget, and even the budgeted price was significantly higher--8 to 10 times higher--than the projected average cost of building something like this in a third-world country. Taxpayers need an explanation of how and why this could have ever happened, and there needs to be a full investigation. We need and will demand answers. What has been illustrated is a perfect example of why not only my constituents but the American public feels that Washington can no longer be trusted and that no one in Washington gets it. Well, I get it. I get it, and we ought to all get it. We ought to be just as outraged as our constituents in terms of our performance here. This is totally unacceptable. As has been said, this Senator is one of the biggest supporters of a strong national defense as anyone standing on this Senate floor, but we are weakening our defense and not allocating our money to the essentials that we need to support our soldiers in the essential tasks they have and the equipment they need. We are doing this kind of stuff, and it has to stop. Our waste of the week is now totaling over $117 billion of identified waste, and who knows what the total would be if we could comb through every agency. Our former colleague Tom Coburn used to say there is a good $1 trillion if added all up. I don't know if it reaches that or not, but we are well on the way. We are at $117 trillion, and these are the things I have identified and addressed coming to the floor this year. Hopefully my colleagues will pay attention. We can't get the big things done. The President won't sign anything or engage in anything relative to the real gorilla in the room that is going to take us down economically, which are the runaway entitlements. Despite all the efforts, many of them bipartisan, the President has said: No, no, no, no, no, not on my watch. The spending is continuing to go up, but the least we can do until we get somebody more responsible as our leader in the White House and until we have the will and courage to take on what we all know needs to be done to get our fiscal house back in order--in the meantime, we can at least stop this egregious spending and waste of taxpayer dollars through fraud and abuse. I am going to continue to do this. Next week we have lined up in our office what we will do, coming down virtually every day to do this and not run out of examples of how taxpayers' dollars are being wasted. As you can tell, I am getting worked up about all this. Somebody needs to get worked up about this because it is not happening and we are spending money, and the public has given up and thrown up their hands and said we are dysfunctional, and they are right. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, do I have a limitation on speaking time?

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 that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes and that Senator Sanders be recognized immediately following my remarks for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I amend that to 20 minutes for Senator Sanders, if there is no objection.