Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I strongly affirm the principle of equal pay for equal work. Both the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which were passed on a bipartisan basis, have helped increase career opportunities for women and ensure they receive equal pay for equal work. That is a principle we strongly support. Women have made progress. They now hold more than half of all managerial and professional jobs--more than double the number of women in 1980--and women comprise a majority in the five fastest growing job fields. According to the Department of Education, women receive 57 percent of all college degrees, 33 percent more than in 1970. We believe--the reports prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor recognize--that commonly used wage gap statistics don't tell the full story. Factors including differences in occupation, education, fields of study, type of work, hours worked, and other personal choices shape career paths and they shape earning potential. Moreover, salaries alone don't account for total compensation. Still, some women continue to struggle with gender-based pay discrimination, directly impacting a woman's livelihood, financial future, and her job security. With 60 percent of women working as the primary breadwinners, lost wages detrimentally impact families as well as single women. We fully agree that gender-based pay discrimination in the modern workplace is unacceptable. We just have different ideas from some of our colleagues about the best way to combat this. Prevailing concern among women with wage discrimination indicates that there is more work to do. That is why I have worked with Senator Collins, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Murkowski to file an amendment to modernize key portions of that 51-year-old Equal Pay Act. Our proposal prevents retaliation against employees who inquire about, discuss or disclose their salaries. It reinforces current law which prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, and it requires employers to notify the employees of their rights, but we don't stop there because I believe we need a solution that addresses both discrimination and the opportunity gap or the need to provide both men and women with good-paying jobs. Our amendment consolidates duplicative job training programs and it provides Federal grants to States for the creation of industry-led partnerships. This program is meant to provide to women and men who are underrepresented in industries that report worker shortages with the skills they need to compete. Such industries include manufacturing, energy, transportation, information technology, and health care. Importantly, no new spending is appropriated. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking consideration of what I believe is this very commonsense amendment and a number of other Republican amendments that would also help with job creation. This is nothing more than election year politics. I find it very disappointing. As women and as lawmakers, we believe our proposal to directly address discrimination in the workplace is reasonable, it is fact-based, and it is a great approach. More government and more lawyers will not lead to more pay for women. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, while I realize Members of this body are very concerned about the situation in the Ukraine today and we are focused on the crisis happening there, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss two bills I have recently introduced that deal with reforms to the Internal Revenue Service. As the Federal agency tasked with administering the U.S. Tax Code, the IRS has extraordinary influence on the lives of Americans from all walks of life and all points of view. Citizens have the absolute right to expect the IRS to be free from political influence, with taxpayers treated fairly and enforcement carried out in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, we have learned our expectations sometimes are very different from reality. In early 2013 the IRS acknowledged a history of targeting politically active groups as some of these groups sought tax-exempt status. This practice first involved flagging groups concerned about government spending and debt. Ironically, the targeting came at a time when poll after poll indicated that the Federal Government's out-of-control spending and our $17 trillion debt were top concerns for all Americans, and from my experience, they are the top concerns for Nebraskans as well. Despite these legitimate concerns and the patriotic desire of Americans to effect change in government, the IRS worked to impede these organizations from full participation in our democratic process. To do so, the IRS dragged its feet and slow-walked applications for tax-exempt status, asking questions that weren't necessary, including questions regarding political beliefs. That is why I recently introduced S. 2043, the Stop IRS Overreach Act. This bill states that the IRS shall not ask any taxpayer any question regarding their religious, political, or social beliefs. This is a pretty straightforward concept, and it is an American concept. It shouldn't matter who you are or what you believe--we should all be treated equally before the law. Given the recent behavior of the IRS, it appears this legislation is necessary. I believe this measure should enjoy support from both parties. It is worth noting that the legislation passed the House of Representatives on a voice vote. American taxpayers are also frustrated with the lack of responsiveness from the IRS. Every single year taxpayers and their accountants write the IRS asking for additional information regarding their taxes. Often, the response from the IRS is silence--nothing but silence. So taxpayers wonder: Did they even get my question? Did they get my letter? Are they going to answer my question? Silence. No answer. The IRS currently is not required to respond to taxpayer communication. We all know, though, that the inverse is true--taxpayers are compelled to respond when the IRS requests any information. This is a double standard which is not fair. My bill, S. 2044, would require the IRS to respond to communication from any taxpayer within 30 days of receiving such communication. This way taxpayers will at least know that the IRS is not asleep at the switch and that they have received their letter. My bill would also make two other significant changes to the IRS: First, it would require the agency to notify a taxpayer if the agency discloses that person's information to another government entity. Current law doesn't require such disclosure. Next, the legislation would require that when the IRS begins an audit on any individual taxpayer, the audit and any tax assessed with the audit must be completed within 1 year. The window for these painstaking audits can't be open forever. The uncertainty adversely impacts families, as these audits currently can be held up for years, with the taxpayers never quite sure if the tax is going to be assessed and when it is going to be assessed. The House approved identical legislation by a voice vote. These two bills are straightforward. They make simple but important changes to the way the IRS operates. Making these changes will help Americans all across our country. I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her courtesy. In addition, I would like to address an amendment I have proposed to the underlying bill. Promoting policies that enable job creation is a basic duty of the people's government. This bill we have on the floor before us now provides low-income, hard-working mothers and fathers with the opportunity to have quality childcare while they earn a steady paycheck or as they go back to school. Americans work hard. They work hard to provide for their families and to make a better life for their children. As a mother and a grandmother I understand that knowing your children are safe and secure is essential to maintaining a steady job. We need to encourage responsible adults to enter and to maintain their presence in our workforce. That is why I appreciate my colleagues' work and their compromise on this bipartisan legislation. I also appreciate how this effort has helped to bring some regular order back to the processes of the Senate. I especially want to recognize Senators Barbara Mikulski, Lamar Alexander, and Richard Burr, who I know worked very hard in a collaborative and bipartisan fashion in order to get this bill to the floor. As part of that process, I filed a proposed amendment that I have with Senator King and Senator Rubio to the child care and development block grant reauthorization. Our bipartisan amendment is a commonsense solution to the FDA's overregulation of low-risk health information technology. That includes mobile wellness apps, scheduling software, and electronic health records. Under current law, which was established in 1976, the FDA can apply its definition of a ``medical device'' to assert broad regulatory authority over a wide array of health IT, including applications that do not pose any threat to human safety. Our amendment allows the FDA to keep its focus on regulating medical devices, while creating a modernized oversight framework for low-risk categories of health IT. Since proposing this amendment, I have had the opportunity to speak with Senator Alexander, the ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee. I am happy to say he has expressed an interest in that amendment. That is identical to the language introduced as a stand-alone bill called the PROTECT Act. I look forward to having the opportunity to work with him and committee members to advance the core ideas included in the PROTECT Act, because I believe with the guidance of the committee, and with the guidance of other Senators, we will be able to achieve another bipartisan success in this Chamber. At Senator Alexander's request, and in response to his kind offers to work collaboratively on the PROTECT Act, I have agreed not to formally offer this amendment to the bill on the floor, but I do look forward to working with the Senator from Tennessee and others to improve upon that. Again, I thank the leadership of Senator Mikulski, Senator Alexander, and Senator Burr on the important legislation before us today. I thank them for their work. I thank them for their courtesies in allowing me to rise and speak on this very important amendment. I also thank them and look forward to working with them on the PROTECT Act in the future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to speak in full support of the McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer proposal that is before us today. It will only strengthen the historic reforms that have already been passed by this body to combat sexual assault in the military. I also rise to express concerns with the Gillibrand proposal to remove commanders from this process because I believe that is going to undermine credibility and accountability. I am glad we are having this debate on the floor because every Member of this Senate agrees that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Over the past year the members of the Armed Services Committee have focused on this issue. It cuts across ideology, across gender, and across regions. It also cuts across party lines. I was happy to work across the aisle with Senator Shaheen on improving the standards for personnel responsible for sexual assault prevention. I was pleased to join with Senator Blumenthal to ensure that victims' rights are protected under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I would argue that our efforts to fight sexual assault show Congress at its best. It is how we are supposed to work. So although we may disagree, we do share the same goals. Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand have both been real leaders in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which held that landmark hearing with our top commanders to explore the problem of sexual violence in the ranks last June. The committee received input from all sides, and we, along with our House colleagues, passed a series of very meaningful reforms when we passed the National Defense Authorization Act. Those are reforms of which we can all be proud. We stripped commanders of the ability to overturn jury convictions. We made retaliation against victims a crime. We required dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted of sexual assault. Now we are trying to strengthen that. We are trying to strengthen those great reforms with the McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer legislation. I believe our proposal will do more to strengthen the rights of victims, and it will enhance the tools to prosecute the criminals. Specifically, our bill extends the current protections to service academies. That is so important. That is in our bill. It boosts the evaluation standards for commanders--also important. It allows the victims increased input--extremely important. So rather than revamping the entire military justice system, which I believe carries massive risk, our proposal improves and updates the current system. Unfortunately, the Gillibrand proposal, I believe, takes radical steps, and it undermines the commander's responsibility for his or her troops. Under that proposal, almost all crimes--from forgery to sexual violence--are removed from a commander's purview. It does not bring that focus to the challenge we are facing. Our proposal does. The other proposal detaches the commander from his or her unit, and it removes all responsibility. I do not want to remove the responsibility from a commander. We trust these people to watch our best and our brightest, our children and our grandchildren, as they go into battle. We need to trust them in this as well. Senator McCaskill brings a wealth of experience to bear on this topic from her days as a prosecutor, and I believe we should all be listening to her. She mentioned in November that the other proposal was ``seductively simple.'' I agree. I agree that its simplicity cloaks a host of very complex policy problems. She has invested a lot of time on this issue. She has explained the technical problems, and I echo her concerns. But I would like to underline one critical point to my colleagues. Many of our problems with the other proposal might appear to be minor procedural details. However, experience tells us that it is exactly these sorts of problems that can grind a justice system to a halt, and they can damage a legal system. That was the case in 2007, when Congress, armed with the best of intentions, modified the rape statute. Those hasty changes disrupted the judicial process and compelled Congress to rewrite the language. Do you know what happened? It delayed justice. So I urge my colleagues and anyone interested in completely revamping that military justice system, you need to be certain that all the questions are resolved and you need to be certain that the implementation will be bulletproof because anything less means delayed justice or no justice at all for the victims. I can go on and talk about the commission that brought forth their recommendations that the justice remain with the commanders. They did not say take it away from the commanders. And the makeup of that commission? Mostly civilian and mostly female. I hope my colleagues will remember these things, look at the facts, look at how we truly can address the needs of the victims, truly find them justice. Support the McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer proposal, and I would ask that you not support the Gillibrand proposal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 35,000 Nebraska senior citizens who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. These Nebraskans are going to face fewer choices, increased premiums, and decreased benefits because of ObamaCare's latest cuts. I am especially concerned with how these cuts will impact rural Nebraskans who may be forced out of the program altogether due to the lack of available plans. The administration has already taken over $700 billion from Medicare to prop up ObamaCare, and $308 billion of that is from the popular Medicare Advantage Program to fund this failed health care experiment. These cuts to health services for seniors only hasten the demise of this successful program, a program that has improved the lives of millions of seniors across this great country. Medicare Advantage works for them. Too many promises have already been made and broken, so let's not break another promise to America's seniors. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about rapid advancements in health care information technology or health IT. Health IT holds amazing potential to transform Americans' everyday lives for the better. I believe that protecting this kind of exciting innovation from overregulation and excessive taxation needs to be a high priority. That is why I am introducing the Preventing Regulatory Overreach to Enhance Care Technology or the PROTECT Act of 2014. Together with Senator Angus King of Maine and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, we are putting forward this pro-jobs, risk-based framework governing health IT. Before I speak about our bill, I thank my colleague from Maine Senator Angus King for joining me in this effort. I am informally telling people that our efforts might be the start of the ``surf and turf caucus'' in the Senate, the place where Nebraska and Maine come together politically to find common ground and work to address real problems in this country. We are able to do so together because Senator King is known as an independent thinker, a problem-solver who isn't afraid to work across the aisle in order to get things done. It is refreshing, and I sincerely appreciate his willingness to work with me. I also give special thanks to Senator Rubio for his interest in this issue as well. He is also an original cosponsor, and he has worked with us on this important topic. What we are trying to do is clarify the Food and Drug Administration's oversight authority over health information technologies. Under current law dating back to 1976, the FDA can apply its definition of a medical device to assert broad regulatory authority over a wide array of health IT, including applications that do not pose a threat to human safety. That means low-risk health IT can be treated like traditional medical devices, subjecting job creators and innovators to these challenges that really don't make sense. The PROTECT Act fixes this discrepancy. The PROTECT Act keeps the FDA's resources focused on products that pose the highest risk to human health. In doing so it also gives regulatory certainty to innovators and job creators who are developing these new products that use data safely to improve health care and also to reduce its cost. Furthermore, the PROTECT Act relieves categories of low-risk clinical and health software from the 2.3-percent medical device tax. Most importantly, though, it protects and promotes American jobs in a key growth sector of our economy. The mobile health and mobile application market is expected to exceed $26 billion by 2017, while the U.S. mobile apps economy is responsible for nearly half a million new American jobs. A report from Health Data Management anticipates 23-percent annual growth in this sector over the next 5 years. The FDA highlights on their Web site that 500 million smartphone users worldwide will be using health apps by 2015. The mobile analytics platform Localytics, which monitors more than 20,000 apps, has seen a 19-percent increase in new health and fitness apps in 2013 from the year prior. That is amazing. But what is even more impressive is the health IT's ability to protect people. Consider the example of a young man named Xavier Jones whose basketball coach downloaded a $1.99 mobile application that gave him a refresher course on how to properly administer CPR. It was a skill that came in handy the very next day when Xavier collapsed in the middle of practice. In 2012 the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs partnered to release a free Apple and Android app called the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Coach. PTSD Coach has been downloaded over 100,000 times in 74 countries. It provides reliable information on PTSD and treatments on users' smartphones. Other types of health IT, such as electronic health records and low- risk clinical decision software, can also lower costs and can improve outcomes. Some of these technologies hold the power to quickly and broadly disseminate new information about effective treatments and recent clinical trials. Patients want their doctors to have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Protecting low-risk health IT is about empowering people with access to information. We need to protect that kind of innovation because innovation is an equalizer for consumers. These technological benefits don't stop at our borders. Think about this statistic: One estimate shows that mobile health deployment in Africa could save as many as 1 million lives by 2017. From assisting nurses with scheduling to reminding pharmacists to refill their stock or even tracking emerging malarial epidemics, mobile health is already transforming the landscape of the developing world in very dramatic ways. These stories only scratch the surface of where this technology is going. It is important how we treat innovation here in the United States. Other countries around the world are looking at how our government will regulate and oversee these low-risk technologies. Our bill makes it so low-risk, highly innovative clinical and health software technologies--and the potential they have to empower people-- are not undercut by these burdensome regulations. FDA's promise to use its enforcement discretion over low-risk health IT only serves to create confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace. Regulatory discretion by its very nature is something that can easily change over time, and discretion can be misused or abused. Clear rules should be set because the current FDA regulatory model for medical devices is not well suited for low-risk health information technologies. In a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year, the FDA submitted a letter to the committee that said: For 2011 and 2012, the average time for FDA review of medical device submissions that were identified as containing a mobile medical app was 67 days and the average total time from submission to FDA decision was 110 days. When regulatory days turn into months, problems are going to persist, and that is not something we should leave to discretion. The regulatory time line for risky devices should not be the same for low-risk software that gets released every 60 days, has major updates every month, and sees regular changes every week. Having an approval process that takes longer than the shelf life of the average device operating system stifles opportunity and it stifles innovation. Innovators, regulators, and consumers need clarity and certainty into how these regulations are going to be enforced. Since mobile wellness apps and most clinical decision support technologies pose little risk to patients, they should not be subject to the same costly painstaking processes as medical devices. The answer is the commonsense, risk-based regulatory approach the PROTECT Act provides. It protects innovation, it protects jobs here in the United States, and it protects jobs in this U.S.-based job sector. Most importantly, it protects patient safety by giving the FDA continued authority and oversight over health IT that is risky and by creating an appropriate regulatory framework for that which is lower risk. With the introduction of the PROTECT Act, I would also like to acknowledge the great work of Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, and others who have undertaken this effort in the past. These Senators have helped to lay the groundwork for the development of a risk-based framework for health IT. The ideas included in the PROTECT Act would not be possible without the progress they secured in previous Congresses and in the FDA's Safety and Innovation Act. I am committed to working with anyone on these issues to exchange views and to exchange ideas so we can get the right policy balance our country needs and deserves. Again, I thank my friends Senator King from Maine and Senator Rubio from Florida for joining me in this important effort. Together, we can achieve our shared vision of protecting patient safety, protecting innovation, and protecting U.S. economic job growth and opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about rapid advancements in health care information technology or health IT. Health IT holds amazing potential to transform Americans' everyday lives for the better. I believe that protecting this kind of exciting innovation from overregulation and excessive taxation needs to be a high priority. That is why I am introducing the Preventing Regulatory Overreach to Enhance Care Technology or the PROTECT Act of 2014. Together with Senator Angus King of Maine and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, we are putting forward this pro-jobs, risk-based framework governing health IT. Before I speak about our bill, I thank my colleague from Maine Senator Angus King for joining me in this effort. I am informally telling people that our efforts might be the start of the ``surf and turf caucus'' in the Senate, the place where Nebraska and Maine come together politically to find common ground and work to address real problems in this country. We are able to do so together because Senator King is known as an independent thinker, a problem-solver who isn't afraid to work across the aisle in order to get things done. It is refreshing, and I sincerely appreciate his willingness to work with me. I also give special thanks to Senator Rubio for his interest in this issue as well. He is also an original cosponsor, and he has worked with us on this important topic. What we are trying to do is clarify the Food and Drug Administration's oversight authority over health information technologies. Under current law dating back to 1976, the FDA can apply its definition of a medical device to assert broad regulatory authority over a wide array of health IT, including applications that do not pose a threat to human safety. That means low-risk health IT can be treated like traditional medical devices, subjecting job creators and innovators to these challenges that really don't make sense. The PROTECT Act fixes this discrepancy. The PROTECT Act keeps the FDA's resources focused on products that pose the highest risk to human health. In doing so it also gives regulatory certainty to innovators and job creators who are developing these new products that use data safely to improve health care and also to reduce its cost. Furthermore, the PROTECT Act relieves categories of low-risk clinical and health software from the 2.3-percent medical device tax. Most importantly, though, it protects and promotes American jobs in a key growth sector of our economy. The mobile health and mobile application market is expected to exceed $26 billion by 2017, while the U.S. mobile apps economy is responsible for nearly half a million new American jobs. A report from Health Data Management anticipates 23-percent annual growth in this sector over the next 5 years. The FDA highlights on their Web site that 500 million smartphone users worldwide will be using health apps by 2015. The mobile analytics platform Localytics, which monitors more than 20,000 apps, has seen a 19-percent increase in new health and fitness apps in 2013 from the year prior. That is amazing. But what is even more impressive is the health IT's ability to protect people. Consider the example of a young man named Xavier Jones whose basketball coach downloaded a $1.99 mobile application that gave him a refresher course on how to properly administer CPR. It was a skill that came in handy the very next day when Xavier collapsed in the middle of practice. In 2012 the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs partnered to release a free Apple and Android app called the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Coach. PTSD Coach has been downloaded over 100,000 times in 74 countries. It provides reliable information on PTSD and treatments on users' smartphones. Other types of health IT, such as electronic health records and low- risk clinical decision software, can also lower costs and can improve outcomes. Some of these technologies hold the power to quickly and broadly disseminate new information about effective treatments and recent clinical trials. Patients want their doctors to have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Protecting low-risk health IT is about empowering people with access to information. We need to protect that kind of innovation because innovation is an equalizer for consumers. These technological benefits don't stop at our borders. Think about this statistic: One estimate shows that mobile health deployment in Africa could save as many as 1 million lives by 2017. From assisting nurses with scheduling to reminding pharmacists to refill their stock or even tracking emerging malarial epidemics, mobile health is already transforming the landscape of the developing world in very dramatic ways. These stories only scratch the surface of where this technology is going. It is important how we treat innovation here in the United States. Other countries around the world are looking at how our government will regulate and oversee these low-risk technologies. Our bill makes it so low-risk, highly innovative clinical and health software technologies--and the potential they have to empower people-- are not undercut by these burdensome regulations. FDA's promise to use its enforcement discretion over low-risk health IT only serves to create confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace. Regulatory discretion by its very nature is something that can easily change over time, and discretion can be misused or abused. Clear rules should be set because the current FDA regulatory model for medical devices is not well suited for low-risk health information technologies. In a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year, the FDA submitted a letter to the committee that said: For 2011 and 2012, the average time for FDA review of medical device submissions that were identified as containing a mobile medical app was 67 days and the average total time from submission to FDA decision was 110 days. When regulatory days turn into months, problems are going to persist, and that is not something we should leave to discretion. The regulatory time line for risky devices should not be the same for low-risk software that gets released every 60 days, has major updates every month, and sees regular changes every week. Having an approval process that takes longer than the shelf life of the average device operating system stifles opportunity and it stifles innovation. Innovators, regulators, and consumers need clarity and certainty into how these regulations are going to be enforced. Since mobile wellness apps and most clinical decision support technologies pose little risk to patients, they should not be subject to the same costly painstaking processes as medical devices. The answer is the commonsense, risk-based regulatory approach the PROTECT Act provides. It protects innovation, it protects jobs here in the United States, and it protects jobs in this U.S.-based job sector. Most importantly, it protects patient safety by giving the FDA continued authority and oversight over health IT that is risky and by creating an appropriate regulatory framework for that which is lower risk. With the introduction of the PROTECT Act, I would also like to acknowledge the great work of Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, and others who have undertaken this effort in the past. These Senators have helped to lay the groundwork for the development of a risk-based framework for health IT. The ideas included in the PROTECT Act would not be possible without the progress they secured in previous Congresses and in the FDA's Safety and Innovation Act. I am committed to working with anyone on these issues to exchange views and to exchange ideas so we can get the right policy balance our country needs and deserves. Again, I thank my friends Senator King from Maine and Senator Rubio from Florida for joining me in this important effort. Together, we can achieve our shared vision of protecting patient safety, protecting innovation, and protecting U.S. economic job growth and opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I too rise to speak on the farm bill. Similar to many Nebraskans, I am relieved that a final conference agreement has been reached and will provide much needed certainty for both producers and consumers. This legislation accomplishes a great deal. It provides risk management and disaster assistance programs. It promotes environmental stewardship. It bolsters export opportunities. It encourages rural development, advances research, helps beginning farmers and ranchers, and delivers nutrition assistance to our needy families. While the bill is not perfect, it is the result of compromise and a long collaborative legislative process. One of the most challenging issues for lawmakers was addressing nutrition assistance programs, which comprise 80 percent of the farm bill's total spending. With one in every seven Americans receiving supplemental nutrition assistance, it is important to strengthen the program's integrity and its accountability, while better targeting programs to serve those in need. I am also pleased the bill empowers States to help capable adults enroll in work programs to reduce reliance on taxpayer assistance. The bill provides tools to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, including cracking down on trafficking through data mining, terminal ID, and other measures. While these are all steps in the right direction, it is disappointing that the bill will not achieve additional savings from nutrition programs, which are projected to cost more than $756 billion over the next decade. True farm programs--the commodity programs and crop insurance--only comprise about 14 percent of all of the farm bill spending, but they account for more than half of the savings under this proposed bill. In fact, the commodity title contributes more savings than any other title in the entire farm bill. The legislation makes significant reforms to farm policy. Direct payments are repealed and replaced with risk management that offers protection only when warranted by significant price or revenue declines. In Nebraska, agriculture is our No. 1 industry, and it is one of which we are very proud. Our farmers and ranchers take on an enormous amount of risk. They endure the elements every day as they work to feed the world and responsibly take care of our natural resources. I am pleased this farm bill maintains and strengthens one of the most important risk management tools for our farmers, and that is crop insurance. This is a very successful public-private partnership that helps farmers invest in their own risk management by purchasing insurance policies so they are protected from adverse weather or market conditions. This legislation also provides needed disaster assistance to livestock producers. Unfortunately, the Livestock Forage Program and the Livestock Indemnity Program both expired in 2011 under the last farm bill. In 2012, livestock producers experienced the most devastating loss of pasture, rangeland, and forage in decades due to widespread drought, affecting approximately 80 percent of our country. Then, in October of 2013, an unexpected early fall blizzard killed more than 20,000 cattle, sheep, horses, and bison in the Dakotas and in my State of Nebraska. While those affected by these hardships have been without assistance for more than 2 years, this farm bill will now help producers to rebuild those herds and sustain their ranching operations. I also appreciate that this farm bill continues our commitment to strong conservation programs. The bill consolidates and streamlines those programs, providing landowners with incentives and assistance to protect and improve our land, our water, and our air. Agriculture continues to be a bright spot for U.S. trade, thanks in part to the successful export promotion programs, and those are reauthorized in this bill as well. An independent study conducted for USDA in 2010 found that for every dollar expended by government and industry on market development, U.S. food and agricultural exports increased by $35. Through the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, we can expect increased demand for U.S.- grown agricultural products and commodities. This farm bill also continues investment in rural development, providing assistance to communities to build that very critical infrastructure and access to credit to help grow small businesses. Also supported by this farm bill are critical agricultural research initiatives which allow American producers to innovate, to become more efficient and productive with fewer and fewer resources. Moreover, the bill also provides support for developing technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Finally, this bill provides some needed regulatory relief for the agricultural industry. I am very pleased the bill includes an amendment I offered to fix bureaucratic hurdles impacting farmers' access to seeds. This bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Carper, ensures that EPA does not treat biotech seeds as pesticides when those shipments are imported. I was disappointed, though, that the conference did not include language to address one of the worst regulatory challenges confronting farmers: EPA's overregulation of on-farm fuel storage under its Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Program. The House farm bill included an SPCC relief provision, and the Senate unanimously passed a similar amendment which I cosponsored to reduce farmers' SPCC compliance burdens during consideration of the Water Resources Development Act. There is bipartisan agreement on both sides of the dome that this regulation needs to be fixed. The farm bill did provide the perfect opportunity for getting this relief enacted into law, but that chance was missed. However, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to ensure we don't miss another opportunity to address this issue--to fix this issue--and we can do that during the WRDA conference. As I said, this bill is not perfect, but on balance this farm bill goes a long way in promoting opportunity and providing certainty for both producers and consumers. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the final passage of the farm bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I ask to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of the 18,000 Nebraskans who have contacted me to express their concerns with the negative impacts of Obamacare. Rather than addressing these problems in last night's State of the Union address, the President doubled down on the failed policy. Well, the President has had his chance to speak. Now it is time for my constituents to have their voices heard. The law is hurting my constituents. It is hurting middle class families. We now know that millions of Americans have lost their private health insurance. Many who have successfully enrolled in the exchange have been forced into plans that do not meet their families' needs. These plans often cost more but cover less. Treatments, even for those battling cancer, have been delayed. We learned this month that a woman named Josie Gracchi--who was diagnosed with breast cancer--recently lost her doctors. She was forced to postpone her scheduled biopsy and follow-up treatment. The reason: Josie's insurance rolled over into a new plan in an exchange under Obamacare at the start of the New Year. Seniors are losing their trusted doctors, too. Americans are disclosing deeply personal information--including their health care histories and Social Security numbers--to a flawed website ripe for hacking. If truth in advertising rules applied to Obamacare, it would be banned as an unfair and unreliable product. Let me give you an example. We were all told that this massive law would dramatically expand coverage for the uninsured. Yet a recent Wall Street Journal article cites a McKinsey study that undermined this promise. Only 11 percent of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey of consumers thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces. One reason for people declining to purchase plans was affordability. That was cited by 52% of those who had shopped for a new plan but not purchased one in McKinsey's most recent sampling, performed in January. As it turns out, the ``Affordable Care'' Act is hardly affordable, and the vast majority of those who purchased insurance through the exchanges already had health insurance. Last week the CEO of Aetna, a major insurance company, said Obamacare was not attracting enough uninsured people to work. He said more premium increases are on the horizon. ``Are they going to be double-digit,'' he said, ``or are we going to get beat up because they're double-digit or are we just going to have to pull out of the program?'' And recently Moody's downgraded health insurers from stable to negative based on uncertainty related to Obamacare. The downgrade is a result of the administration's series of unilateral changes, which only invite even more uncertainty. This pervasive uncertainty is also plaguing our small business owners, who are struggling with the onslaught of new regulations. Americans see selective delays for some, but not all. Hardworking men and women--our entrepreneurs--are the backbone of our economy. Any sort of meaningful economic recovery will only come when they have the confidence to grow and expand their businesses and that requires certainty. Obamacare robs them of that certainty, and as a result the unemployed are robbed of jobs. It's not just those searching for work who suffer from Obamacare's heavy regulatory hand. Our senior citizens are at a loss as well. The Washington Post recently described challenges facing Medicare Advantage patients because of Obamacare. Obamacare has cut over half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Now, insurers are terminating physician networks. According to The Post: Insurers say they must shrink their physician networks because they face billions of dollars in government-payment cuts over the next decade--reductions that are being used partly to fund insurance coverage for millions of people under the federal Affordable Care Act. And it is not just our seniors, it is also the young. A recent study by the American Action Forum found that it would be cheaper for 86 percent of young adults to forgo coverage. The study concluded: Even after mandate penalty is fully implemented, a majority of young adult households will find that it is financially advantageous for them to forgo health insurance, pay the mandate penalty, and personally cover their own health care expenses. Without the participation of young, healthy people, we are told the whole system will collapse. Then what? To add insult to injury, some Obamacare proponents want taxpayers to pick up the tab for insurance companies assuming the whole system might, in fact, collapse. Instead of calling this a ``bailout''--which is what it is--they use terms that could only be coined in Washington--terms like ``risk- corridors,'' ``reinsurance funds,'' or ``risk-sharing protection.'' The White House may even preemptively alter portions of this program for big insurance companies before the law falls apart. I believe American taxpayers have paid enough. That is why I cosponsored Senator Marco Rubio's Obamacare Bailout Prevention Act. The President and big insurance companies should not be permitted to force taxpayers to pay for the mess they created. Nebraskans have no interest in any more bailouts. And they certainly cannot afford to pay for these sky-rocketing premium spikes. Just ask my constituent from Lincoln, who wrote me recently to share her story. She said: I spent 2 hours on the phone with Healthcare.gov. The Supervisor said she was going to try and reapply and reinstate my plan beginning January 1, 2014. . . After an hour long process everyone but my 15 year old son was approved for healthcare. So, then she tried to apply again. . . An hour later the system `crashed' and she asked me to call back later. So I called back yesterday. I had to go through an hour long process again for signing up. . . at that point, all THREE of my children were completely denied coverage. My husband and I are seriously scared. . . if something catastrophic happens our family will be ruined without healthcare for our children. These hardworking middle class families need relief. They are over- taxed and over-burdened. People are scared. The law has not brought what the President promised. The cost of this flawed law is depriving Nebraskans the opportunities to build their own futures and pursue their dreams. Scrapping this law should be a priority for the Senate, the White House, and the country. It certainly is a top priority for me. We must repeal and replace this failed law now. Anything short of that is just irresponsible. Our constituents are counting on us--let's not disappoint them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. As we begin a new year, the Senate returns with many significant challenges before us. One such challenge is the security of our citizens' private information. Just before Christmas, news broke out that Target, a popular retail store in Nebraska and all across this Nation, had experienced an enormous data breach involving nearly 40 million debit and credit account numbers. That is nearly 1 in 10 Americans who had their sensitive personal information put in jeopardy. Between November 27 and December 15, scammers silently stole massive amounts of consumer information from Target. The timing of this breach is significant, not only because it happened during the peak of the holiday shopping season, but also because this data is reportedly being sold on black markets around the world. On December 20, Target announced: ``The information involved in this incident included customer name, credit or debit card number, and the card's expiration date and CVV.'' It was further determined on December 27 that encrypted PIN information, or encrypted personal identification numbers, associated with that data was also stolen. This wasn't only an attack on Target, which has 14 stores in my home State of Nebraska, it was a crime against millions of hardworking citizens. Let me be clear. It is also much more than just a mere inconvenience for consumers. Yes, such thefts complicate the daily routines of Americans, but it can also potentially damage their credit ratings, and it is an incredible tax on people's time. It also leaves many feeling vulnerable, including, unfortunately, the most vulnerable among us, the elderly. As a Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, I urge the chairman and our ranking member to begin looking into this matter further. Our Nation's entire data security system is in desperate need of revamping, and that is going to require congressional action. What happened with that Target breach was not an isolated incident. TJX Companies, which owns national retail chains TJ Maxx and Marshalls, was breached in 2007. Sony and Epsilon were also attacked in 2011. We learned on New Year's Eve that the popular social communication platform Snapchat was also hacked, a breach of about 4.6 million user names with their corresponding phone numbers. These are only the latest examples, but we all know the problems run much, much deeper. Identity theft has been the No. 1 consumer complaint at the Federal Trade Commission for the last 13 years in a row. The average financial loss for each instance of identity theft is $4,930, and it has been estimated that identity theft resulted in a $24.7 billion loss for our country in 2012. Given these realities, we need to dedicate more time and energy to solutions that substantially improve the safety of our online activities. While the Target breach is important and deserves our attention, so too should the security risks posed by healthcare.gov, as well as the Federal and State insurance exchanges set up under ObamaCare. Experian, a major U.S. credit reporting bureau, recently released its ``2014 Data Breach Industry Forecast,'' which states: ``The healthcare industry, by far, will be the most susceptible to publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized data breaches in 2014.'' As those who found out the hard way can tell us, healthcare.gov takes and holds a lot of sensitive information, including our social security numbers, names, and other information that can be transmitted. It has also been reported that hackers have attempted to break into the Web site at least 16 different times. Several experts say those numbers are very conservative estimates of known attempts. Health and Human Services contractors also identified security vulnerabilities, which HHS ignored, before the site went public on October 1. The protections and breach notifications standards for ObamaCare, which people were forced into, don't even meet the minimum standards put in place for the private sector. Every Nebraskan, and every American, has the right to know if their private information has been compromised because of ObamaCare. Fortunately, data security appears to be an area where Republicans and Democrats can come together and do something positive for the American people. We must take great care, however, not to make the problem worse. Smart policy results from an open, collaborative process, with input from businesses, consumers, and security experts. That is going to be the answer, not more red tape. We should seek to streamline our data security laws to provide clarity and consistency. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the commerce committee to address these data breaches and to protect the integrity of Nebraskans' and Americans' personal information. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. I rise today on behalf of over 37,000 unemployed Nebraskans and nearly 21 million Americans who are searching for work. The vast majority of these men and women are jobless through no fault of their own. They are the real-life casualties of failed Washington policies. They are our friends, our neighbors, and in many cases they are our family members. They are decent people, and they are desperate to regain the dignity of a full day of labor. We have had 5 years of economic fits and starts--glimmers of hope dashed by the harsh reality of persistent economic headwinds. But the weak job reports and the Pollyanna claims of recovery don't tell the full story. Our real unemployment rate or the total percentage of unemployed and underemployed workers tops 13 percent, significantly higher than the 7 percent reported by the Department of Labor in November. That is nearly 21 million people out of work. At the same time our labor force participation rate is at 63 percent, a near 35- year low. The greatness of a nation cannot endure without work for its people. It is not only about putting food on the table. It is about the ability of families to buy a home, to save for their kids' college education, and to retire with a modest nest egg. It is about hard-working moms and dads in need of the simple assurance that their government isn't going to pass laws that intentionally make life harder for them. I am interested in promoting thoughtful economic policies that increase employment opportunities and make life a little bit easier for our people. But instead of a laser focus on job creation, politicians in Washington seem to pivot from issue to issue, frantically chasing the topic du jour. Jobless Americans aren't interested in who is to blame; they are interested in who is going to fix this mess and how. Congress has returned to Washington for a new year, a new chance to take on daunting challenges, such as joblessness in America. We have all been informed by the media and the so-called wise men of Washington that 2014 will be a year in which very little is accomplished. The pundits point to election-year politicking, and some Members are fretting about taking those very tough votes. There is no will for action, they say. There is no chance for any kind of compromise, they claim. The 21 million Americans without jobs are counting on us to do our job. They expect and they demand that we do better. Promoting policies to create jobs is not election-year rhetoric; it is the duty of the people's government. The best way to support the unemployed is not to just extend the benefits; we need to grow the economy, and we need to provide paychecks for families. Lately, there has been a lot of talk about income inequality or the need to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Some argue that deficit spending is the way to go, while others insist on increasing the minimum wage. Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, offers a different take on how to best conquer the income divide. In a July 31, 2013, opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Brooks notes: Again and again, the president offers a higher minimum wage as a solution. Yet as the overwhelming majority of economists have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the poorest and most marginalized workers--those with the most tenuous grip on their jobs. In January, a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded: ``The evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some, against job losses for others.'' Brooks continues: The story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better. Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University has shown that business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009. Launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government. While it is still possible for the educated and comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the income scale. As a pro-poor rule of thumb, I suggest this: If you want to start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack through all the red tape before setting up shop. I think Brooks is right. Regulatory overreach is also holding back American business. Regulations can be helpful. They ensure the health and safety of Americans. However, overregulation places unnecessary burdens on small business owners, and it does stifle economic growth. A homebuilder in Nebraska once told me that he was fined $7,000 for leaning a ladder against a wall. There is solid legislation out there to address the rampant redtape. Here are a few examples. The Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act of 2013 is a bill that was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts that I am cosponsoring. It requires the executive branch to repeal duplicative and onerous rules currently hindering our Nation's job creators. It also requires Federal agencies to modify, streamline, or repeal significant regulatory actions that are unnecessary or overly burdensome. The legislation ensures that regulations put forth by the administration account for their economic impact on American businesses. It ensures stakeholder input and promotes innovation. These simple commonsense policies are a good start toward relieving business owners of some of the unnecessary challenges they face in these already difficult economic times. I believe and I know many Nebraskans believe that executive agencies should be held accountable for the rules they put in place which directly affect our economic growth and our job creation. Another key way we can spur economic growth is through broad-based tax reform. Our current tax system is arcane and riddled with loopholes for special interests from the eighties. It is time that we simplify our Tax Code so that we can encourage progrowth behavior. Whenever I travel in my State and I meet with Nebraska's business owners, both large and small, I hear the same message over and over: We need more certainty. We need more certainty. They need more certainty in the Tax Code, they need more certainty in health care, and they need more certainty in the regulatory environment. A business cannot grow today if it cannot adequately predict its needs for tomorrow. This is especially true for small business owners, who are responsible for 64 percent of all net new private sector jobs. Jobs will come when these entrepreneurs have confidence that the bureaucrats are going to get off their backs. Jobs won't come from just another DC Government program. I believe we must shift the focus of economic growth from government- driven regulation to private sector innovation. The great government- controlled experiment has failed us yet again, so it is time for a change of course. There is no shortage of good ideas out there. My colleagues and I have introduced dozens of bills to directly address job creation by repealing specific regulations, preventing new burdensome mandates, and encouraging a fairer tax system. But so far we haven't had any form of meaningful debate. Why? Why can't we debate in this body in a meaningful way? I believe it is because we are restricted in this Senate by what we can actually vote on. It is a radical form of control, and we are tired of it. Rather than allowing an open amendment process, the majority leader has locked this place down. We hear constant calls to end obstruction, but if we are being honest, we would all acknowledge that the primary obstruction here is in the broken, nonexistent amendment process. My friend and colleague Senator Coburn recently noted in the Wall Street Journal: Mr. Reid had already used Senate rules to cut off debate and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times-- more than all other Senate majority leaders combined. Why? It appears designed to advance a partisan political agenda--show votes in an election year. In other words, let's airdrop bills on the floor and prevent any form of modification or improvement. That seems to be routine business around here these days, and it is shameful. It is my hope that in this new year all thoughtful ideas will get a vote. It is my hope that in this new year we will actually get a chance to amend bills. That is the only way we can actually pass legislation to improve the lives of the American people. I look forward to putting forth my own proposals to fulfill my duty to the people of Nebraska to get our friends and our neighbors back to work. Rather than focusing on issues that divide us, I hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will come together to support policies that promote opportunities for all. Show votes might make for good election-year politics, but make no mistake--they are bad policy. And unfortunately it is ``we the people'' who pay the steep price for politics over policy. I am excited for another year here in the Senate where I can represent my friends and neighbors, Nebraskans from back home, and I look forward to helping put Americans back to work in the year ahead. Our citizens send us here to do a job and they are counting on us, so let's not let them down. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Elizabeth Wolford to be U.S. district judge for the District of New York. I am new here. I am just completing my first year in the Senate. But I believe this nomination gives us all an opportunity to discuss how government is or is not working in Washington, DC. I know when I travel the State of Nebraska--and I am back in the State most weekends and put on hundreds of miles; we are a big State, but as I travel the State of Nebraska, people always ask me: How are things going in Washington? How are you doing in Washington? I can't help but compare what we do in Nebraska to what we are doing now in Washington, DC, because in Nebraska we have a pretty unique system. We are unicameral, we have one house, we are nonpartisan, and we get things done. We have an agenda set up every day in the Nebraska legislature, and we follow that agenda. We have bills listed. We go through those bills, and, most importantly, we take votes. As a State senator in the State of Nebraska, I have an opportunity to rise and debate with my colleagues on the issues before us. I have the opportunity to sit at my desk in the chamber in the Nebraska capitol and write out an amendment, take it up to the desk, have it discussed, and then have it voted upon. I believe the Nebraska way is a good example for what we could do here in Washington because we have so many important issues before us that are not being debated. I am speaking basically to an empty Chamber right now. We aren't debating the big issues before this country. We are not acting upon the big issues that are before this country. We certainly are not voting on those issues. We have a system in the Senate where amendments are not accepted. That whole concept is very foreign to me, because, as I said, in Nebraska we are able to file amendments and we are able to have those amendments voted upon. We also respect the rights of the minority, for although we may be officially nonpartisan, we do belong to political parties. We have a right to express our views on an issue, to represent our constituents, and to express their concerns. Those rights are respected, they are valued, and they are upheld. I can tell my colleagues I had bills that were filibustered in the State, and those filibusters would last, in one case, 16 hours. But in the end, after those views of the minority were expressed, we took a vote on the issue. In Nebraska, we take up those issues. We defend the rights of our constituents to be heard, and that is what this body should do as well. We should honor the rights of all of our constituents and have their views be heard. Being from Nebraska, we don't have as many people as some of the other States. But within this body, every Senator is equal. Every citizen has equal representation. That is a principle, and that is a value that must be respected. I am sorry to say I believe we are at a point where that principle, that value is no longer respected within the U.S. Senate. I see my colleague from Nebraska is in the Chamber, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska and I be able to enter into a colloquy.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I am so very fortunate to have Senator Johanns as the senior Senator from Nebraska. He has a wealth of experience as a former Governor, as a former Secretary of Agriculture, and as a U.S. Senator. So he has definitely been a mentor to me. I believe, perhaps, Nebraska can mentor the Senate through the trying times we are facing right now. As Senator Johanns said, we are nonpartisan. We do not caucus. We do not have majority or minority leaders because we are nonpartisan. So we do not have that leadership structure in our State that we have here in the Senate. In the State of Nebraska, if you want to be part of leadership, you stand on the first day of a legislative session, and you have to nominate yourself and run for that position. So you would nominate yourself for speaker and then we do a secret ballot. It is 25 votes, and you would be speaker because there are only 49 of us. Then we go through the committees, and we have 14 standing committees. So as chair of the transportation and telecommunications committee, I had to stand on the floor of the legislature and nominate myself, which is hard to do, but you nominate yourself, and then your colleagues, your peers, decide who the chairman will be. We had Republicans and Democrats who were committee chairs. In fact, this past year in the legislature, even though officially there is a majority of Republicans, many of our chairmen--in fact, I think it was the majority--were Democrats because you are rewarded for the hard work you do, for your integrity, for your honesty, for being willing to listen to all sides and work with everyone to reach consensus. So it is a unique system, it works for our State, and it is that ability to work with each other to try and build those coalitions so you can get your 25 votes on an issue, on a bill that you have, that makes us so very special with regard to other States and also with regard to the U.S. Senate, because we do work together. The coalitions change. The coalitions change depending on the issue. You can find allies all across the spectrum--from more liberal members to more conservative members. If you have a good idea that is going to benefit the people of the State, your peers are willing to come forward and work with you. I know Senator Johanns as Governor had to draw up budgets and send those budgets, then, to the legislature and have our appropriations committee go through that process dealing with his agency heads. Then the appropriations committee would bring that package to the floor. Here again, we would debate it. I do not know if the legislature always agreed with Senator Johanns during his time as Governor, but perhaps he could give us some insight into how we came together on budgets and were able to work through that as well.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, the people of Nebraska would never stand for that to happen in our State. As I said, we are very proud of our unicameral system and how we are able to work together. Of course, we know who is a Republican and who is a Democrat in the Nebraska legislature. But as I said, we are able to cross that aisle, which does not exist in Nebraska, by the way. We do not sit separate from each other. We are able to reach out and work together. We have this system that is so open and so transparent. We work with the Governor--or perhaps in Senator Johanns' case not work with the Governor--on the issues. But we are able to have that dialog with our chief executive. We are able to have that dialog with each other. We have a committee process where every bill that is introduced has a public hearing. Any person can walk into the hearing room and come forward and testify before a legislative committee in the State of Nebraska. Senators then have the opportunity to ask questions to be able to gain more information, not just from people who are invited to come and sit on a panel before a legislative hearing but from citizens who step forward and are willing to take that time away from their jobs, their families. Some may have to travel a great distance since we are a very big State in order to get to the capital to be at a hearing and express their views. I believe in most cases--at least in my experience--every individual who would come before a legislative hearing in the State of Nebraska was treated with respect, whether they agreed with a majority of the members on the committee or they had a disagreement. It is a respect for those views that are different from your own that I believe is so very valuable as a legislator, to be able to hear, to be able to question. That is why it truly saddens me that we are seeing a rules change here in the Senate, where I believe the views of the minority will no longer be considered. It has been my experience here so far that I have been able to have meetings with nominees, nominees who are coming before the committees that I sit on to be confirmed. They come to my office. I am able to ask them questions. I am able to express to them the concerns I have heard from the people in my State and hopefully get answers from them. It does give us an opportunity to establish a relationship where we are going to be able to work together in the future but, more importantly, it gives me the opportunity, as the Senator from Nebraska who happens to be in the minority, to have that chance to question the nominee for Commerce Secretary. With the rules change, now that requires 51 votes, and even as a committee member, those nominees do not even have to come and introduce themselves to me. That is not fair. It is not fair to the people of my State because every State citizen needs to be represented here in the Senate. That is what is so very--or what used to be so very special about this body. You look through history--I know Senator Johanns is a great student of history--you look through history and you read about the debates that happened on the Senate floor. I remember earlier this year when we were all in the Old Senate Chamber and we got to experience that feeling of being open and honest with our colleagues, without the cameras going, and truly being able to air some grievances. I thought that was helpful. It was a very moving experience for me as a new Senator to be there. But I think perhaps the Senator would agree with me that we have lost that spirit of the Old Senate Chamber and of the Senate Chamber in which we are standing.

Mrs. FISCHER. In watching the Senate before I arrived and in studying the Senate throughout history, the beauty of this body has been the individual rights of every single Senator. With the change we have seen, I believe those rights are diminished, which translates into the people who live in States that are represented by the minority will not be heard in this body. I have been surprised, I have been shocked, and I have been hurt by comments from the majority, where I am referred to as an obstructionist, where my colleagues on this side of the aisle are referred to as extremists, anarchists. I don't even know how to respond to the question of the Senator because nothing could be further from the truth. How I view this body is as one that should have an agenda. We should have Members on the floor participating in debates on bills following an agenda and taking votes, but we don't see that. Instead, we see the two of us and our friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer, speaking to an empty Chamber, speaking to the TV cameras. That is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. We are supposed to be doing the people's work. I say to the Senator I don't know what we are obstructing, because as a member of the Armed Services Committee, we passed the National Defense Authorization Act out of committee in May. We passed that out of committee in May. We could have taken it up in June. We could have taken it up in July, September, and October. Instead, we seem to be in this crisis management mode in one of the greatest bodies in the world. That makes no sense. I am ready to do the work, but until these bills appear on the agenda, how do we do the work? Why do we wait until we have a few days left in the year to take on what I believe is our most sacred responsibility, the defense of this country, our national security, our military men and women, our veterans. The committee passed out a great bill in a bipartisan vote. It has passed in the Senate for the past 50 or 51 years. Yet we are against a time limit that was manufactured. As I said, the bill came out in May. Why wasn't it on the agenda? Why can't we have amendments to it--very important amendments. I happen to have a good amendment with Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, and Senator Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, that we believe makes the provisions in our committee bill dealing with sexual assault even better, even stronger, that will protect victims. We are not allowed to have that amendment. Again, that is a foreign concept to me, as a Senator, not being allowed to have an amendment on a bill that should have been brought up on the floor months ago so we could have had a debate on this truly No. 1 priority of our country. Instead we have crisis management. I don't know about the Senator from Nebraska, but I don't respond well to crisis management. I like to have time to make wise decisions, to have major discussions, to gather information, to represent our constituents, to represent the American people. The American people demand more. They demand us to be better. I can't even imagine what folks think when they know we are speaking to an empty Chamber, when we should be talking about the big issues of the day, when we should be talking about the National Defense Authorization Act, when we should be talking about sexual assault in the military, when we should be talking about how are we going to make sure our military men and women have the resources they need to keep them safe so they can return to their families and return to their families whole. We should be talking about Iran. We should be talking about Benghazi, but we are not because we are not allowed to have that legislation before us. As a new Senator, I can tell the Senator I am very frustrated. I know when the Senator is back in the State he hears, as I do, that the people of Nebraska are frustrated as well. I believe they reflect the views of the people of this country. They expect more from us. They expect us to be better. They expect us to do our job. How can we do our job when we are not allowed to vote on legislation that addresses the truly pressing issues of our day? I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, yes, I am frustrated. I am upset. I am angry that I am not able to represent the people of my State by taking a vote, by taking a vote on amendments that all Senators feel are important as well. It is not only Republicans offering amendments that don't get heard, it is Democrats as well. I would imagine the Presiding Officer is very frustrated. This has to change. I don't know how long it has been going on, but we can change this. We can change this by having an agenda that works, an agenda that brings bills up by a leader who is going to have an open amendment process. Instead of us coming to the floor and addressing a camera, we need to be able to debate each other and have our voices heard because we are representing those voices back home. They expect that. We need to do this. Maybe I am naive, but I think we can do it. I think we can still come together and be able to work together. Sometimes we hear the terms ``obstructionist,'' ``extremist,'' and ``anarchist.'' Enough of that. It is not only Republicans who are demanding their rights and who are exercising their rights. I know we have Democratic colleagues who have put holds on nominations. They are not obstructionist. They are not extremist. They are exercising their rights as Members of the Senate. They are exercising their rights to have questions from their constituents answered. I will defend their rights to put holds on nominations until they get those questions answered. We don't always hear about that though. We don't hear that it is all of us in the Senate who have that duty to make sure we can have our constituents' concerns answered; so we can have a project in our State that is being held up for one reason or another addressed; so we can bring forward a question--from our Governor or our State or our State legislature--that an agency has not addressed in a timely manner, and where we as Senators can push a little harder to get an answer from a nominee or an agency. That is checks and balances. That is a balanced government. That is transparency. That is accountability. It is not allowing the executive branch to get everything they want. None of us gets everything we want. Senator Johanns made the comment that as Governor it is give and take. As a State senator I can tell you I had to compromise on bills that I thought were great the way I had them drafted, but you need to compromise with your colleagues, with the Governor, and with the President, in order to truly represent all the people in this country. I am sorry to say this country is polarized. This country is polarized and the Senate is polarized. If we could show some leadership here--if we can take on these hard issues, make tough decisions, and make hard choices--then we would be good examples to our country and we would have a brighter future. We need to show some leadership. We were elected to make these hard choices for the American people so that we can go forward. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor so that my colleague has time to address issues before us.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 7,000 Nebraskans who have contacted my office with concerns about ObamaCare. The sticker shock has hit Nebraskans hard. A woman from Palmyra writes: This is the first time I have ever written my Senators. We just received our insurance letter telling us that they no longer would have our health insurance policy and the closest policy under the ACA would up our monthly premium from $590.14 to $932.24 for our family of 6. How is this affordable? A constituent from Holdrege writes: I cannot believe the letter I got from Blue Cross today. It informs me that I have to switch my coverage, and my new selected plan will cost me $1,116.74, per month. That's a $571.58 per month increase than what I have now. That's almost double my mortgage payment. Also, why am I forced to carry coverage that I don't need or want? At 58, my wife and I are not going to have any more kids. I don't believe I'm going to qualify for any government subsidies. Our planned budget includes our current health care policy. There is no way we can afford the suggested new policies. This law is anything but affordable. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act or the GONE Act. This legislation would require federal agencies to close out expired grant accounts with an empty balance. ``U.S. government spends $890,000 on nothing''--it sounds like a bad joke, but it is no laughing matter. The Washington Post recently reported, ``This year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on service fees for bank accounts that are empty. At last count, Uncle Sam has 13,712 such accounts with a balance of zero.'' According to an official government report, the Government Accountability Office, GA0, reported last year that the Payment Management System, the largest civilian payment system for grants managed by the Department of Health and Services, was charged $173,000 to maintain the Department of Health and Human Services' 28,000 expired grant accounts with a zero balance. Furthermore, the GAO estimates that if federal agencies were billed for the entire year, maintaining expired grant accounts with a zero balance for the entire year would cost $2 million in fees. To tackle this problem, I am introducing the GONE Act, a bill with a commonsense goal: to increase accountability. My legislation would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit a report to Congress and the agency head including a list of each expired, empty grant account held by the Federal Government, recommend which grant accounts should be immediately closed, and for those grant accounts that have been expired for more than 90 days, to explain why it has not been closed out. It would also require the agency head to close out the expired, empty grant accounts and to update the Council on whether the grant accounts were closed. Additionally, the bill would require the Council to submit a follow-up report to Congress and the committees of jurisdiction on the status of grant accounts identified for closure. While the fees currently spent on expired grant accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is plenty of fat to trim. At a time when our country faces serious fiscal challenges and a soaring $17 trillion national debt, these fiscal blunders are more than foolish--they are dangerously irresponsible. This example of government waste underscores the critical importance of proper congressional oversight of federal agencies and their funding. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to cut wasteful spending and help bring greater accountability to Washington.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act or the GONE Act. This legislation would require federal agencies to close out expired grant accounts with an empty balance. ``U.S. government spends $890,000 on nothing''--it sounds like a bad joke, but it is no laughing matter. The Washington Post recently reported, ``This year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on service fees for bank accounts that are empty. At last count, Uncle Sam has 13,712 such accounts with a balance of zero.'' According to an official government report, the Government Accountability Office, GA0, reported last year that the Payment Management System, the largest civilian payment system for grants managed by the Department of Health and Services, was charged $173,000 to maintain the Department of Health and Human Services' 28,000 expired grant accounts with a zero balance. Furthermore, the GAO estimates that if federal agencies were billed for the entire year, maintaining expired grant accounts with a zero balance for the entire year would cost $2 million in fees. To tackle this problem, I am introducing the GONE Act, a bill with a commonsense goal: to increase accountability. My legislation would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit a report to Congress and the agency head including a list of each expired, empty grant account held by the Federal Government, recommend which grant accounts should be immediately closed, and for those grant accounts that have been expired for more than 90 days, to explain why it has not been closed out. It would also require the agency head to close out the expired, empty grant accounts and to update the Council on whether the grant accounts were closed. Additionally, the bill would require the Council to submit a follow-up report to Congress and the committees of jurisdiction on the status of grant accounts identified for closure. While the fees currently spent on expired grant accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is plenty of fat to trim. At a time when our country faces serious fiscal challenges and a soaring $17 trillion national debt, these fiscal blunders are more than foolish--they are dangerously irresponsible. This example of government waste underscores the critical importance of proper congressional oversight of federal agencies and their funding. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to cut wasteful spending and help bring greater accountability to Washington.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the series of historic reforms adopted by the Armed Services Committee to combat sexual assault in the military. The women have taken the lead on this matter. Sexual assault is not a gender issue, it is a violence issue. I rise to voice support for a bipartisan amendment that I have offered with Senator McCaskill and Senator Ayotte to directly confront this violence, and I urge my colleagues to oppose any radical changes that would undermine justice for the victims and take away responsibility from commanders. I am proud to have supported several measures to strengthen the rights of victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and strengthen oversight of military commanders to ensure that justice is delivered. As a result of a truly bipartisan effort, the committee has put forth a bill that takes an unprecedented step of providing victims with a special victims' counsel to make certain they are receiving unbiased, independent legal advice. It strips commanders of the ability to overturn jury convictions, makes retaliation against victims a crime, requires dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted of sexual assault, and provides critical civilian oversight. Despite achieving these unprecedented reforms in committee, my colleagues and I continue to explore ways to enhance the current bill after the committee's work had concluded. Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and I introduced an amendment last week to expand upon the committee's progress. Our proposal extends current protections to service academies, boosts evaluation standards for commanders, and allows victims increased input. It also eliminates the good soldier defense in most cases. These changes, both in our amendment and in the whole NDAA, are significant but, importantly, they are also serious and thoughtful. They are based on sound policy, not on political sound bites. Rather than radically remaking the entire military justice system, which would carry significant risks, our proposals improve and update the current system. To do so, we applied lessons from history. In 2006, Congress hastily changed portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to address instances of rape. These changes disrupted victims' paths to justice, and Congress was forced to rewrite its own changes a few years later. Congress can't afford to get something this important wrong. We cannot let our deep desire to solve this problem lead to imprecise solutions because victims suffer when we do. Any changes to the UCMJ should come after a deliberate and transparent process, with feedback from all sides. The McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer amendment is the result of such a process, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Finally, I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendment that undermines a commander's responsibility for his or her troops. Senator McCaskill put it so well when she spoke on the floor earlier today: The amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from New York, offers a solution that is ``seductively simple,'' but its simplicity creates a host of complex policy problems. In addition to technical concerns, I do not agree with the underlying goal of removing commanders from the military justice system. As Senator McCaskill noted, we know commanders pursue courts-martial when their legal advisers recommend against doing so. We know, based on the experiences of our allies, that removing commanders from that judicial process does not achieve the desired results. And we know that commanders have risen to the challenge in the past to confront contentious issues within their units, including integration. These facts lead me to conclude that the changes in this bill, combined with the reforms included within our amendment, will best serve the interests of victims and punish those responsible. I commend the Senator from Missouri for her leadership on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work closely with her, Senator Ayotte, and many other colleagues to help our men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 3,000 Nebraskans who have contacted my office with their concerns about ObamaCare. Their stories are, unfortunately, not unique: skyrocketing premiums and cancellation of plans they were promised they could keep. Curt from Lincoln, NE, wrote to tell me he has seen his Blue Cross Blue Shield premiums rise a shocking 300 percent. David, a father living in Omaha, is facing a potential total increase of $16,000 a year for his family's coverage--$16,000. Another constituent from Bertrand, NE, will see his family's deductible more than double next year. He asked: ``How is this the Affordable Care Act?'' An apology now will not help the hard-working Nebraskans who have lost or who will soon lose their current coverage. One constituent wrote, ``Folks shouldn't need a second mortgage to pay for ObamaCare.'' I agree. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.