Floor Statements

Mr. President, before I close, I would like to take a minute to talk about the President's foreign policy. The Congress has received the President's request for authorization for the use of military force in Iraq and Syria, and we will take a hard look at this request. But we still haven't seen a comprehensive strategy from the President for confronting and defeating ISIS. ISIS represents a barely comprehensible level of evil. Wherever its members go they leave a trail of blood. Their reign of terror in the Middle East has included the systematic persecution and murder of Christians and other minorities, rape, torture, burnings, beheadings, as well as reports of the crucifixion and burying alive of children.

Just 2 weeks ago ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in Libya. The men's only crime was professing their faith. This morning's news included reports of another 90 Assyrian Christians being abducted by ISIS from a village in northern Syria.

My heart sinks each time I hear any report of abductions of this nature because we know the fate that is likely in store for these people. Evil like this cannot be ignored. It must be confronted. The United States should be a leader in the effort to defeat this hellish organization and its reign of brutality.

The President should have articulated a plan for responding to ISIS months ago, but, unfortunately, his lack of decision is par for the course when it comes to this administration's foreign policy. Time and again, the President has been confronted with a foreign policy crisis and has simply failed to respond. That needs to end now. With crises multiplying around the world, it is time for the President to step up and start leading. We cannot afford for him to sit on the sidelines any longer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Agricultural Act of 2014 implementation after one year and Farm Credit Administration pending nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a subcommittee hearing entitled ``U.S. Human Exploration Goals and Commercial Space Competitiveness.''

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 February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Review of Resources, Priorities and Programs in the FY 2016 State Department Budget Request.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform, Growth and Efficiency.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities: A Report from the Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Human Trafficking in the United States: Protecting the Victim.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, for the past week Democrats in the Senate have been filibustering a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year. They object to the bill because it does not fund President Obama's Executive overreach on immigration--despite the fact that the President spent years declaring he didn't have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty.

Quoting what the President told an audience on July 25, 2011:

Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very

tempting, I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But

that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy

functions. That is not how our Constitution is written.

On January 30, 2013, the President stated, ``I am not a king. . . . I am required to follow the law.''

That same day he said:

If this was an issue I could do unilaterally, I would have

done it a long time ago. . . . The way our system works is

Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity

to sign it and implement it.

Well, President Obama was right. The Constitution does not give the President authority to make laws. It is Congress's job to make laws, and it is the President's job to execute them. Clearly, based on these statements, the President knows that. He has reiterated that sentiment more than 20 times over the past few years. Yet a few months ago he decided to ignore the law and the Constitution in an attempt to make immigration law by Executive fiat. How can he possibly justify that?

Members of his own party were troubled by that decision.

``I have to be honest, how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable,'' said a colleague from the State of Missouri back in November.

The junior Senator from Indiana said that ``the President shouldn't make such significant policy changes on his own.''

The junior Senator from Minnesota admitted, ``I have concerns about executive action.''

``I also frankly am concerned about the constitutional separation of powers,'' said the Independent Senator from the State of Maine.

Many Democrats here in the Senate Chamber, as well as an Independent, have expressed their reservations and their concerns about how the President has proceeded. Democrats are right to be concerned, which makes it particularly troubling that Democrats are now trying to shut down the Department of Homeland Security to protect the President's overreach because, make no mistake, Democrats are refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security unless funding is provided for the President's unconstitutional attempt to make his own immigration laws.

If Democrats don't like this bill, they should vote to debate the measure and offer amendments to fix the parts they don't like. Republicans are ready and willing to entertain Democrats' amendments. In fact, the Republican leader has offered to let Democrats alternate amendments with Republicans on a one-to-one basis. An open debate is what the Senate is known for on a big issue. If Democrats want to fund actions that even they have admitted are troubling, they are welcome to offer an amendment to provide that funding. They have that opportunity.

What we are talking about is the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, offering an open process--something that we have talked about since we became the majority, something that we were denied in the last session of Congress when we were in the minority. We have the opportunity to have an open debate, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments. That is precisely what majority leader Senator McConnell has put forward. He has given Democrats that option.

Let's put the bill on the floor. We will have a chance to offer amendments. If Democrats don't like what is in the bill, they will have an opportunity to offer amendments, have that debate, and vote.

Democrats need to stop their obstruction and move forward on this bill. Blocking all funding to the Department of Homeland Security is not a responsible solution, especially when the Democrats are blocking the bill solely to protect Presidential actions that the President himself has admitted are unconstitutional and outside the scope of his authority.

We can end all this gridlock that is existing right now on the Senate floor simply by the Democrats allowing us to get on this bill and end the filibuster. Give us an opportunity to debate and offer amendments. Let's have that debate--a debate that is clearly important to a lot of people across this country and certainly a lot of people here in the Chamber of the Senate. We are going to be denied that opportunity if the current filibuster and current blocking of even getting on that legislation continues by the Democrats.

Mr. President, I would also like to take a few minutes today to discuss the President's foreign policy or lack thereof. ``Lack thereof'' seems to be the most accurate description of the President's lead-from-behind foreign policy. Whether it is a Russian proxy war in Ukraine or the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the President is slow to respond and unclear about American goals even when he does.

Months after the ascension of ISIS--a terrorist organization so radical that even Al Qaeda considers it to be too extreme--the President still hasn't laid out a strategy for combating this threat. ISIS represents a horrifying new nadir in the annals of terrorism. There is apparently no act of brutality this organization rejects. Yet a clear plan for defeating ISIS has yet to be articulated.

This week the President is finally supposed to send Congress an authorization for the use of military force against ISIS. I look forward to examining that authorization. Since ISIS first emerged, the President has had the authority he needs to go after this terrorist group, but I think seeking additional authorization from Congress is wise, and I hope it will help define his strategy for combating this enemy and supporting our partners in this fight.

America clearly cannot fix all the world's problems, but we can help. We can build a coalition, and we can lead. We can give our commanders in the field the tools they need to meet our clear and growing threats.

Six years of indecision, mistakes, and Presidential irresolution has diminished America's image with our allies. The triumph of the President's political calculus over clear military and diplomatic objectives has made the world less safe, not more. Now more than ever we need a clearly articulated foreign policy from the President and the commitment to back it up.

Later this week we will consider the nomination of Ash Carter to be Secretary of Defense. Dr. Carter seems to be a very capable individual, and I believe he will serve our country well. But changing personnel alone won't fix the President's foreign policy problems. Even a very capable Secretary of Defense cannot succeed if his hands are tied by the lack of a coherent strategy from the President.

As crises multiply around the world, the President needs to provide the leadership that is required from our Commander in Chief. Whether it is defeating ISIS, standing up to Russia, or confronting Iran's nuclear ambition, it is high time we saw the leadership from our President that our country needs and deserves.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United States released his budget. Unfortunately, it looks like the same old failed, top-down policies of the past. It is a government-knows-best approach that clings to more taxes, more spending, and bigger government. And it is exactly what the American people don't need.

If the past 6 years have demonstrated anything, it is that big government doesn't work. Six years of big-government policies have left the American people struggling.

Even the Vice President of the United States admits it. Speaking at the House Democrats' retreat last week, Vice President Biden said:

To state the obvious, the past six years have been really,

really hard for this country.

That is the truth. The recession officially ended more than 5 years ago, but the recovery has been weak and sluggish. Economic growth has lagged far behind the pace of other recoveries.

By this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had created a staggering 11.8 million more private sector jobs than we have created since the recession ended.

Wage growth has remained stagnant under the Obama administration, while prices have risen. The average family health insurance premium has increased by over $3,000 since the President's health care law was passed. Household income has declined by more than $2,000 over the past 6 years. And too many Americans are unemployed or trapped in part-time jobs because they can't find full-time employment.

Over the past 6 years, middle-class families have had to work harder and harder just to stay in place. Getting ahead has started to seem like an impossible dream.

Republicans are committed to changing that. Providing relief to the middle class is the priority of America's new Congress. We intend to do it by eliminating the top-down, big-government policies of the past few years and replacing them with a new path focused on growing the economy from the ground up.

If big government programs tend to assume one thing, it is that government knows best. The government decides what it thinks you need, and then it makes you pay for it.

Well, Republicans don't believe government knows best. We believe the American people know best. And our goal is to get government off the backs of American families. We want to eliminate burdensome government programs and regulations and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. We want to leave Americans free to make the best decisions for their families about health care, about housing, and about everything in between. We want to make sure Americans live in an economy that provides the resources and opportunities they need to support their families and achieve their dreams. That is what we mean by fighting for people, not government, and we have already gotten started.

Senate Republicans just passed legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This project is a win-win for Americans. It would support 42,000 jobs during construction. It would invest billions in the economy. It would bring in millions in revenue to State and local governments.

In my home State of South Dakota alone, the pipeline would bring in $20 million in tax revenue. That is a lot of funding for local priorities such as schools and teachers, law enforcement, roads, and bridges.

Finally, the Keystone Pipeline would substantially reduce our reliance on oil from unstable countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. That would be good news for American families' energy bills.

In addition to legislation to approve Keystone, Republicans have a number of other job-creating bills on the agenda.

The House of Representatives has already taken up legislation to make it easier for employers to hire veterans by exempting new veteran hires from ObamaCare's burdensome employer mandate. House Republicans have also taken up legislation to fix ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek rule, which is currently cutting workers' hours and wages by making it more difficult for employers to create or maintain full-time positions.

Republicans will also be releasing our own budget in the next few weeks, and it will be very different from President Obama's. First of all, our budget is going to balance. The President's budget never balances--ever--and that is not a sustainable path for our country. Families have to balance their budgets. They don't have a choice. The Federal Government should be no different.

The President tends to act as if the Federal Government is different, as if the fact that his new government programs have good intentions means he can somehow ignore the fact that the country can't afford them. But the Federal Government is just like any family or business or organization. If its budget isn't balanced, bad things happen.

Right now, the Federal Government is in debt to the tune of $18.1 trillion. That number is so large that it is practically unfathomable.

To put it in perspective, 18.1 trillion people are more than 2,540 times the total population of the Earth; 18.1 trillion miles is the distance to the Moon and back--almost 38 million times.

Needless to say, a debt that big is not a good thing--and the President's budget would keep adding to it. In fact, it would add another $8.5 trillion to the debt. That is not good news for future generations who will have to pay down the bills our generation is racking up.

Republicans' budget will balance. It will take aim at out-of-control Federal spending and address our massive Federal debt. Our budget will also cut waste to make the government more efficient, effective, and accountable to the American people. There is no excuse for wasting Americans' money on ineffective and duplicative programs.

The President's budget is about the past. Republicans' budget will be about the future. The American people sent a clear message in November that they were tired of the status quo in Washington. They were tired of gridlock. They were tired of the same old top-down, government- knows-best approach to governing.

Well, Republicans heard them. And since we took control of Congress a month ago, we have focused on living up to the trust the American people placed in us. We have gotten Washington working again.

In just 1 month, we have held more amendment votes than Democrats held in an entire year. Committees are back up and running, and Republicans and Democrats are getting the chance to make their constituents' voices heard.

We have passed job-creating legislation, and we are going to keep passing more. We are going to put forward the kind of budget the American people are looking for: a budget that balances, a

budget that targets wasteful Washington spending, and a budget that starts to address the massive debt that has accumulated under the Obama administration.

President Obama has a choice: He can continue to put forward the failed policies his budget offers, or he can move away from these policies and work with Republicans to start cleaning up the debt and getting government off the backs of the American people. We hope he will choose to work with us.

But whatever he chooses, though, Republicans will continue this Congress as we have begun: by getting Washington working again for American families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week President Obama came over to Congress to deliver his annual State of the Union Address. His speech focused heavily on something Republicans have

been talking about for the last 6 years: helping the middle class. Occasionally the President even sounded as if he had stolen a line from Republicans, which I can assure you Republicans were happy to provide.

Seriously, Republicans were glad to hear the President pivoting back to the middle class. Providing relief for the middle class is the Republican priority in the new Congress and we are eager to work with the President to get things done for American families.

Unfortunately the President's speech didn't show the same willingness to work together. In fact, Wolf Blitzer from CNN said: ``I don't remember a State of the Union Address where I heard a President issue so many veto threats to the opposite party in the United States Congress.''

While it was good to hear the President focus on the middle class, his actual proposals for helping them left much to be desired, because unfortunately they were more of the same top-down, big government policies that have failed to help Americans over the past 6 years. For example, the President proposed a new tax on middle-class families' college savings accounts--the last thing families need when they want to save for their children to go to college. Fortunately, the President because he received so much pressure has been forced to withdraw this particular proposal, but his speech contained a lot of other proposals that would not provide the help American families need.

If there is anything the past 6 years have shown, it is that big government is not the solution to our economic challenges. In fact, it is the cause of many of our economic problems.

Take a look at ObamaCare. A Gallup poll released last week found that health care costs are one of American families' top two concerns. It is no wonder. ObamaCare was supposed to help our Nation's health care problems. It was supposed to drive down premiums and make health care more affordable. Instead, it has generally done the opposite.

Since ObamaCare became law in 2010, health care premiums have risen. Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance plans. Others have lost access to doctors or to convenient hospitals. Still others are stuck in insurance plans paying more for less coverage. Then of course there are all the problems the law has created for workers and businesses and the pain millions of Americans will be feeling this tax season when they discover they owe the government money from their ObamaCare subsidies or that they must pay a tax penalty for failing to have government-approved health insurance.

The American Action Forum recently ran the numbers and estimated that 6,000 people in South Dakota will have to pay the ObamaCare tax penalty for not having government-approved health insurance. According to a calculator on the Wall Street Journal's Web site, the average individual in South Dakota will pay a $394 penalty this year, while the average family of four in South Dakota will pay a $650 penalty. Now that is a lot of money. That is a lot of money for a family in South Dakota, and it is only going to go up because the tax penalty will rise in 2016.

As we can see on this chart, South Dakotans could be spending that tax money on a number of essential items if they didn't have to pay the penalty. In fact, for $394 in South Dakota you can buy 201 gallons of gas at current South Dakota prices, buy 6 weeks of groceries or make 1.1 car payments with that amount of money. That is for an individual and the amount they can be basically hit with in terms of the tax penalty.

If we look at how this impacts a typical South Dakota family--and the distinguished Chair knows exactly what I am talking about--if they didn't have to pay that $650 tax penalty, it could be used for 332 gallons of gas in South Dakota at South Dakota prices, 3 weeks of groceries or almost two car payments. If we think about 332 gallons of gas in South Dakota, that would cover a lot of trips to school or to football practice or to dance practice. These are real-world impacts on real people. As ObamaCare has demonstrated, big government is not the answer.

While it is great the President wants to focus on helping the middle class who suffered for years under his policies, he cannot help them if he insists on pushing more of the same failed top-down, big government policies. The last few years have involved laying a lot of burden on American workers and on the American economy to fund big government programs and the President's pet projects.

Take the ObamaCare tax on lifesaving medical devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps. This tax was put in place to help pay for the President's health care law, but it has ended up negatively affecting jobs in this industry. Even Democrats who voted for the President's health care law are pushing to get rid of this tax.

Take the Obama Interior Department's recent decision to push for closing off large swaths of Alaska to energy development that would create jobs and benefit Alaska's economy, as well as strengthen America's energy independence or take the crippling new energy rules the President's EPA has proposed, such as a new tax on coal-fired powerplants that could result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and devastate entire communities; likewise, the EPA proposal to lower the ozone standard that would be the most expensive EPA regulation in history.

I intend to reintroduce my bill, the bipartisan CASE Act, to make sure we tackle places with the worst smog in the country before forcing cleaner areas to meet what is an impossible standard.

If we want to fix the economy, we have to stop weighing it down with taxes and regulations. We have to reject yesterday's stale policies with their focus on taxing, spending, and regulating. Instead of pushing big government solutions, we need to rebuild our economy from the bottom up.

Republicans are focused on the future that embraces and fights for the potential of the people, not government. That means passing legislation to free businesses to create jobs. It means reforming our Tax Code to put more money in the pockets of American families and to make it easier for American businesses to compete around the globe. It means eliminating the kind of heavy Washington spending that is weakening the economy and piling up debt on the backs of the next generation of Americans. It means getting rid of redtape and regulations that are stifling energy development and the jobs that go along with it and preventing more American businesses from growing and hiring new workers. It means opening new markets abroad for American manufacturing and American farm products.

The past 6 years have not been kind to American families. A recent Reuters story opened by saying, ``Barack Obama enters the final 2 years of his legacy with a blemish on his legacy that looks impossible to erase: the decline of the middle class he has promised to rescue.''

Household income has fallen by more than $2,000 on the President's watch, according to Sentier Research. Meanwhile, prices have gone up. Millions of Americans are unemployed while millions more are stuck with part-time jobs because they cannot find more work. Millions of other Americans are so discouraged with not finding work over the past 6 years that they gave up looking and dropped out of the labor force entirely. Wage growth has remained stagnant during the Obama Presidency. As a CNN headline put it after the President's State of the Union Address, ``Obama says wages are growing. They're not.''

It is no surprise middle-class families aren't feeling an economic recovery or that Americans list lack of money and low wages as one of their top financial concerns.

A New York Times headline from Sunday read ``Middle Class Shrinks Further As More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up.''

It doesn't have to stay this way. Republicans don't believe in a permanent middle-class decline. If we stop government from weighing down our economy with taxes and regulations and start freeing businesses to create new jobs and opportunities for American workers, our economy will rebound and the middle class will feel the effects.

Republicans are already working on legislation to help the middle class and we will be sending our first job-creating bill with legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and the

42,000 jobs it will support during construction to the President very shortly. We hope the President will sign it.

American families have had to spend 6 years in this economy. They shouldn't have to wait any longer for relief.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided after each vote and that all after the first vote in the series be 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, last year we saw an all-time record number of motor vehicle recalls, including those by General Motors, Toyota, Honda, and others.

The commerce committee held five vehicle safety hearings, examining GM ignition switches, Takata airbags, and the related question of whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, is up to the task of providing effective oversight of the auto industry.

What is absolutely clear, from our hearings and other media coverage, is that we need to ensure potential vehicle safety defects are identified as early as possible so we can protect consumers and hopefully prevent deaths and injuries. That is why earlier today Senator Nelson and I introduced the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act.

I am pleased to note that Senators Heller, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Ayotte, Moran, and Blumenthal have cosponsored this important legislation. Senators Moran and Blumenthal being added as original cosponsors of this legislation is important because of their respective responsibilities as the chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee on consumer protection, which has played a large role over the years on various automobile safety efforts.

This afternoon I am pleased that Senator Nelson has joined me on the floor as a lead sponsor to discuss this important piece of legislation and our ongoing work on vehicle issues. As the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, one thing that has remained constant on our committee is the spirit of bipartisanship.

With regard to S. 304, the Motor Vehicle Whistleblower Act, this legislation will incentivize auto employees who uncover serious allegations of vehicle defects or violations of motor vehicle safety laws that could lead to death or serious bodily injury to voluntarily provide that information to the Department of Transportation.

If such information leads to the Department of Transportation or the Department of Justice enforcement action that totals more than $1 million in penalties, the whistleblower would be eligible to share in a portion of the total penalties collected. This bill will protect the whistleblowers' identities and allow DOT to share information with the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies where appropriate.

Other agencies have similar programs, including programs that incentivize individuals to report information to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the Internal Revenue Service. NHTSA plays a key role in ensuring the safety of vehicles that consumers drive on our roadways. Record fines have been levied against Toyota, General Motors, Honda, and other manufacturers.

In 2014, NHTSA issued more than $126 million in civil penalties, a record amount, exceeding the total amount collected by the agency in all of its 43-year history.

Ensuring the safety of American motorists is a priority, but the public's trust has been shaken due to the record number of recalls this past year. Almost 64 million vehicles were recalled in 2014, which is about 3 times the number of vehicles recalled in 2013--and the concerns many have about problems in the industry and at NHTSA.

After my repeated calls on the President to fill what had been a lengthy vacancy regarding the Administrator position at NHTSA, which operated without a Senate-confirmed Administrator for 389 days, I am glad to say the commerce committee did its job to ensure that Dr. Mark Rosekind was confirmed as Administrator before the end of last year. However, there is much more work that needs to be done.

The defects associated with the GM ignition switch recall and the Takata airbag recalls were apparent failures with serious safety consequences that resulted in death and serious injury. As we learned from the GM incident, delays in reporting safety-related defects to the government can cost lives.

In recent years, Congress has enacted, and NHTSA sought to implement, a robust early-reporting regime. I believe we can do more to ensure that NHTSA is informed of potential defects as early as possible. Some of the major automakers and other manufacturers have also instituted or sought to improve internal safety reporting systems that encourage employees to report safety problems.

I applaud these efforts, but reports of employees whose concerns may have been ignored, silenced, or possibly even covered up persist. If there are potential whistleblowers with important information to help NHTSA identify more defects that are not being addressed, we want them to come forward so these problems can be identified much earlier in the process.

I think we would all agree it is better to address a problem before injuries or deaths occur, if at all possible, rather than relying primarily on fines imposed after the fact. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will help to prevent injuries and deaths for American drivers.

NHTSA and other stakeholders have provided input on this legislation. I look forward to working with these groups and my colleagues, and particularly with Senator Nelson, as we move forward with the committee to process and pass this legislation.

I yield the floor to Senator Nelson for his remarks.

Mr. President, last year we saw an all-time record number of motor vehicle recalls, including those by General Motors, Toyota, Honda, and others.

The commerce committee held five vehicle safety hearings, examining GM ignition switches, Takata airbags, and the related question of whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, is up to the task of providing effective oversight of the auto industry.

What is absolutely clear, from our hearings and other media coverage, is that we need to ensure potential vehicle safety defects are identified as early as possible so we can protect consumers and hopefully prevent deaths and injuries. That is why earlier today Senator Nelson and I introduced the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act.

I am pleased to note that Senators Heller, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Ayotte, Moran, and Blumenthal have cosponsored this important legislation. Senators Moran and Blumenthal being added as original cosponsors of this legislation is important because of their respective responsibilities as the chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee on consumer protection, which has played a large role over the years on various automobile safety efforts.

This afternoon I am pleased that Senator Nelson has joined me on the floor as a lead sponsor to discuss this important piece of legislation and our ongoing work on vehicle issues. As the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, one thing that has remained constant on our committee is the spirit of bipartisanship.

With regard to S. 304, the Motor Vehicle Whistleblower Act, this legislation will incentivize auto employees who uncover serious allegations of vehicle defects or violations of motor vehicle safety laws that could lead to death or serious bodily injury to voluntarily provide that information to the Department of Transportation.

If such information leads to the Department of Transportation or the Department of Justice enforcement action that totals more than $1 million in penalties, the whistleblower would be eligible to share in a portion of the total penalties collected. This bill will protect the whistleblowers' identities and allow DOT to share information with the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies where appropriate.

Other agencies have similar programs, including programs that incentivize individuals to report information to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the Internal Revenue Service. NHTSA plays a key role in ensuring the safety of vehicles that consumers drive on our roadways. Record fines have been levied against Toyota, General Motors, Honda, and other manufacturers.

In 2014, NHTSA issued more than $126 million in civil penalties, a record amount, exceeding the total amount collected by the agency in all of its 43-year history.

Ensuring the safety of American motorists is a priority, but the public's trust has been shaken due to the record number of recalls this past year. Almost 64 million vehicles were recalled in 2014, which is about 3 times the number of vehicles recalled in 2013--and the concerns many have about problems in the industry and at NHTSA.

After my repeated calls on the President to fill what had been a lengthy vacancy regarding the Administrator position at NHTSA, which operated without a Senate-confirmed Administrator for 389 days, I am glad to say the commerce committee did its job to ensure that Dr. Mark Rosekind was confirmed as Administrator before the end of last year. However, there is much more work that needs to be done.

The defects associated with the GM ignition switch recall and the Takata airbag recalls were apparent failures with serious safety consequences that resulted in death and serious injury. As we learned from the GM incident, delays in reporting safety-related defects to the government can cost lives.

In recent years, Congress has enacted, and NHTSA sought to implement, a robust early-reporting regime. I believe we can do more to ensure that NHTSA is informed of potential defects as early as possible. Some of the major automakers and other manufacturers have also instituted or sought to improve internal safety reporting systems that encourage employees to report safety problems.

I applaud these efforts, but reports of employees whose concerns may have been ignored, silenced, or possibly even covered up persist. If there are potential whistleblowers with important information to help NHTSA identify more defects that are not being addressed, we want them to come forward so these problems can be identified much earlier in the process.

I think we would all agree it is better to address a problem before injuries or deaths occur, if at all possible, rather than relying primarily on fines imposed after the fact. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will help to prevent injuries and deaths for American drivers.

NHTSA and other stakeholders have provided input on this legislation. I look forward to working with these groups and my colleagues, and particularly with Senator Nelson, as we move forward with the committee to process and pass this legislation.

I yield the floor to Senator Nelson for his remarks.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 58

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

Mr. President, tonight the President of the United States will lay out his agenda for the year, but unfortunately it sounds as if much of it will be a rehash of the same stale, top-down ideas Democrats have been trotting out for the past 6 years: more taxes, more spending, more regulation--in other words, more government. If Democrats could sum up their agenda in one phrase, it would be ``government knows best.'' But the past 6 years have very clearly demonstrated that government does not know best. The past 6 years of the Obama economy have not been kind to American families.

It is time for new ideas. It is time to change the focus from building up government to building up people. Americans need more jobs, better wages, and lower costs for health care, education, and energy, and the Republicans' priority is meeting those challenges. We want to rebuild the economy from the ground up and increase economic opportunity for every American.

Tonight the President will talk about helping middle-class families, and Republicans are pleased to see the President pivoting back to middle-class concerns--something Republicans have never looked away from. We hope President Obama is serious about wanting to work with Republicans to address the challenges facing the middle class, but it is a little hard to take the President seriously when he is talking about helping middle-class families while simultaneously issuing veto threats for bills that would benefit them.

Within the past 2 weeks, the President has issued veto threats for two bills that would help create jobs for middle-class families--a bill to fix ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek provision, which is affecting employees' hours and wages, and a bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline. The House passed both of these bills earlier this month, and the Senate is currently in the process of considering the Keystone legislation. If it weren't for the President's veto threat, Keystone XL could be approved in the next few weeks, but thanks to the President, the future of the pipeline is still in doubt.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is supported by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress. Six of the Senate Keystone bill's original sponsors are Democrats. The American people support the pipeline. Unions--a traditionally Democratic constituency--support the pipeline because their members want the jobs the pipeline would create. In fact, a number of unions sent letters just this month reiterating their support for the pipeline.

This is what James P. Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said:

The Teamsters Union continues to believe that the Keystone

XL pipeline will contribute to enhanced energy security,

economic prosperity, and, of critical importance, the

creation of good-paying jobs.

Those aren't Republican talking points; that is a letter from James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Edwin D. Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said something similar:

At a time when job creation should be a top priority, the

Keystone XL Pipeline project will put Americans back to work

and have ripple benefits throughout the economy. During

construction the project is expected to support at least

42,000 jobs and contribute $3.4 billion to the U.S. Gross

Domestic Product.

Again, that is from Edwin D. Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Yet, despite all this support, President Obama is willing to turn his back on American workers to appease the only people who seem to oppose the pipeline; that is, members of the far-left environmental wing of the Democratic Party.

Over the years, the President has offered various excuses for why he is not yet ready to approve the pipeline. He has cited environmental concerns. The only problem with that, of course, is that the President's own State Department has stated the project will have minimal impact on the environment. The President has also cited the court case over the pipeline's Nebraska route as a reason for waiting on the pipeline approval. Well, as of a week and a half ago that excuse is gone. The Nebraska Supreme Court has now upheld the pipeline's route. The administration responded by reiterating the President's veto threat.

President Obama has tried to minimize the impact of the pipeline delays by diminishing the importance of the jobs the pipeline would create. He has repeatedly mentioned that most of the jobs the pipeline would create would be temporary. Well, tell that to a construction worker who is looking for a job. Does the President oppose all infrastructure projects because some of the jobs they create are temporary? Or does he just oppose projects when the jobs they create are opposed by the fringe elements of his party?

The Keystone XL Pipeline will be a boon to our economy and to American workers. The President's own State Department has stated that the pipeline would support more than 42,000 jobs during construction and contribute $3.4 billion to the economy. In my home State of South Dakota the pipeline will support 3,000 to 4,000 jobs during construction and generate over $100 million in earnings, according to the President's State Department. These are not my figures. These are figures from the President's own State Department.

Keystone will bring in millions of dollars in State and local taxes for a host of local priorities--from schools to law enforcement to roads and bridges. In addition to providing jobs and generating revenue for State and local governments, the Keystone XL Pipeline will also help America's farmers get their goods to the market. Rail backlogs this fall left too many farmers struggling to ship their harvests. Keystone XL would help alleviate future backlogs by taking 100,000 barrels of North Dakota and Montana oil off the rails, which would free up substantial space for farmers and for other rail shippers.

Finally, the Keystone XL Pipeline will strengthen our energy security by reducing our dependence upon energy supplies from volatile countries. This increased energy security will also keep energy prices low for American families. Recent gas price reductions are largely due to increased North American energy development which has reduced our dependence on oil from countries such as Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. The Keystone XL Pipeline will help us continue to replace oil imports from volatile countries with our own oil and imports from our friend and ally Canada. That in turn will help keep American families' energy bills low. With energy bills accounting for more than a quarter of after-tax income for families making less than $30,000, lowering Americans' energy costs should be a priority.

It is time for the President of the United States to fish or cut bait. Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline should be a no-brainer. Republicans support it, Democrats support it, unions support it, and the American people support it. The pipeline would create jobs. It would increase revenue for local governments. It would strengthen our energy security, and it would do all of this--all of this--without spending a dime of taxpayer money.

President Obama can talk all he wants tonight about helping American workers and middle-class families, but it is his actions that will show whether he really means what he says.

If the President is serious about helping middle-class families, if he is serious about standing with American workers, then he will approve the Keystone XL bill when it gets to his desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.