Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I rise today on behalf of all Nebraskans to say thank you to our Nation's veterans. Our Nation has long been blessed with men and women with integrity who step forward and answer the call to serve. Throughout times of war and times of peace, our country has maintained a military that has been the envy of the world. Each year Veterans Day is a time to thank and to honor the generations of patriots who have risked life and limb to protect our Nation and defend the cause of freedom. These heroes leave their homes--their comfortable lives with loved ones--for months and years at a time to fight wars in foreign lands. From the windy beaches of Normandy, to the snowy mountains of Korea, and the blistering deserts in the Middle East, our veterans have served fearlessly around the globe. Meanwhile, others, including members of the National Guard, have been stationed throughout the United States serving dutifully to protect the homeland. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have the unique privilege of interacting directly with our servicemembers. I have had the opportunity to meet soldiers, including many Nebraskans, working to protect the hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, and I have visited with troops stationed in Germany, Italy, and other allied nations. This past July I had the opportunity of a lifetime, celebrating Independence Day with our troops in Afghanistan. I expressed my gratitude for their work, and I assured them of my support in the Senate for that work. While I am committed to ensuring our Active-Duty servicemembers have the training and the tools they need to fulfill their missions, I am equally committed to keeping the faith with our Nation's veterans. Each time I speak with one of Nebraska's many wonderful veterans, I am reminded of the honor and the valor that decorates all of our men and women who have served. Each one has a unique and a very memorable story to tell. Recently, I was humbled to take part in the inspiring journey of more than 130 Nebraska Korean war veterans to Washington, DC, through the Honor Flight Program. It was a privilege to help welcome them at the Korean War Memorial on the National Mall. All of our veterans deserve our appreciation, but it was especially important for me to acknowledge the heroic efforts of those men and women who fought in what is referred to as America's forgotten war. We are forever grateful to each and every American who has served, and we salute those who have paid the highest price. Another way to honor our fallen and missing servicemembers is by showing our gratitude to those who are still with us today. As President Lincoln stated, it is our great charge ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' As a Senator, I am dedicated to promoting policies that assist America's veterans when they return home and to help ease the transition back into a normal life. Many need care for their physical injuries as well as their emotional scars. Despite possessing valuable skills, veterans also have difficulty finding employment after their return. We need to encourage businesses and organizations to utilize the talents of our Nation's veterans and to help them find employment in our local communities. It is not only the values but also the training and the discipline of our military personnel that make America's fighting force second to none. I am pleased to report to Nebraskans that this year's National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, furthers the goal of helping servicemembers better translate the skills they gain in the military to a civilian job. Specifically, it helps ensure that servicemembers understand how their military skills effectively transfer to meet license or certification requirements for civilian careers. It also requires the DOD to make available as much information as possible on the content of military training to the civilian credentialing agencies. Employers need to appreciate the vast array of skills and knowledge our veterans acquire during their Active-Duty service. My staff and I also stand ready to assist these men and women in navigating Federal agencies to get the assistance they may need. Many of our States' veterans have contacted my office with a range of important needs that are not being met, promises that have yet to be kept. These requests range from acquiring important service treatment records, to securing benefits for veterans' spouses, and navigating the bureaucratic maze that plagues the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a great track record in securing the needed assistance. This year's NDAA also urges the Secretary of Defense to expedite efforts to integrate electronic health records between DOD and the VA. When it is fully implemented, this should greatly shorten the time it takes for these servicemembers to have their information transferred to the VA and start receiving the benefits they are due. We can never fully repay our men and women in uniform for the contributions they have made to our country, for their noble acts of service, but we can continue to do our best to honor their legacy. The peace we enjoy was hard earned. We owe our way of life to their service and their sacrifice. We will never forget and we are forever grateful. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I rise to call attention to a problem that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle recently. That issue is our unemployed and underemployed American youth. On September 14, the Wall Street Journal published a must-read story entitled: ``Wanted: Jobs for the New 'Lost' Generation.'' I would like to read a brief excerpt from that article. Like so many young Americans, Derek Wetherell is stuck. At 23 years old, he has a job, but not a career, and little prospect for advancement. He has tens of thousands of dollars in student debt but no college degree. He says he is more likely to move back in with his parents than to buy a home, and he doesn't know what he will do if his car--a 2001 Chrysler Sebring with well over 100,000 miles--breaks down. ``I'm kind of spinning my wheels,'' Mr. Wetherell says. ``We can wishfully think that eventually it's going to get better, but we really don't know, and that doesn't really help us now.'' Derek Wetherell's experience is hardly unique. It is unfortunately an experience shared by Americans across this Nation, including in my home State of Nebraska. Despite promises of economic recovery, jobs remain scarce, particularly for young people. A quick survey of family members, neighbors, and friends reveals that too many adult children are now living at home, stuck in their parents' proverbial basements. A study released by The Opportunity Nation shows that 6 million young people between 16 and 24 are neither in school nor are they working. That means roughly 15 percent of America's youth are idle when they should be gearing up for their most productive years. The study went on to state: Youth unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade, and young people in many European countries now have a better shot at moving up the ladder from poor to rich than they do in America. The United States has always stood as the land of opportunity--the new home sought by immigrants from Europe and from around the world, risking life and limb for personal freedom and economic progress. It seems that the ancient European capitals now offer young people more hope--a better chance at upward mobility--than our failing economy. That must change. The jobless youth don't belong exclusively to any class, race, or gender. This problem does not discriminate. Nearly 1 in 4 African- American youth is unemployed, while the unemployment rate for young Latinos in September was 15.8 percent. Young men are unemployed at a rate of over 17 percent, while nearly 13 percent of young women are out of work. Washington Monthly recently discussed the long-term impact of joblessness on our youth. The consequences are dire for these young Americans. They're not only more likely to have a hard time in the job market; researchers have found that disconnection has scarring effects on health and happiness that endure throughout a lifetime. Unemployed, uneducated youth are at greater risk for criminality and incarceration, and they often go on to become unreliable spouses and improvident parents. The costs to society are also considerable. The direct support expenses and lost tax revenues associated with disengaged young people cost U.S. taxpayers $93 billion in 2011 alone--a bill that will only compound as the years progress. In short, our weak economy is not only frustrating young Americans presently eager for work; it is jeopardizing their future. It is threatening more than just their ability to find present jobs; it is thwarting their efforts to build rewarding careers and to start families. They are getting a late start--if any start at all. And what about those young Americans who have found work? According to a report by Accenture, over 40 percent of college graduates in the last 2 years are overqualified for their jobs. In other words, many of them are underemployed. I believe all work has dignity. And while a college degree is important, it is not for everyone. But hard-working young people should have the opportunity to use their degrees and pursue their passions. They are not asking for special treatment--they are just asking for a chance. This economy is holding them back. As if young people weren't facing enough adversity, now they are told they are legally required to purchase costly health insurance. In fact, the new law completely depends on their participation. Yet the report on premiums released by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that many young people will not qualify for subsidies to make their premiums affordable. A study published by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that subsidies did not exist for people from 18 to 34 years of age in 11 of 15 exchanges. These young people will be required to pay the full price of their premiums, which we all know are skyrocketing around this country. The American Academy of Actuaries published an article noting that the young people who don't qualify for subsidies will see an increase in costs of 42 percent. Tom from Omaha wrote me to tell me about his 26-year-old son, who had been paying $159 a month for his health coverage. ``Effective January 1, 2014, his rate will be $231. What is affordable about this?'' Tom added that his son's deductible would ``increase by $3,000 and his out- of-pocket costs by $3,850.'' We are no longer dealing with projections, we are dealing with real people. The National Center for Public Policy Research also found that even with the subsidies, about 3.7 million young people would actually save at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the fine, and as many as 3 million young people would save at least $1,000 by opting out of ObamaCare. The bottom line? We have record numbers of unemployed young Americans now being forced to purchase health plans they do not want and, in some cases, with coverage they don't even need. We need to empower, not burden, young Americans. The American dream of launching a career, starting a family, buying a home, and forging a brighter future is not some quaint relic of a bygone era. The dream is alive and well. Our young people are still dreaming. It is time for us to honor our duty to ensure that the next generation has the tools and experience to succeed, to keep America strong, and to pursue that dream. Right now, we are falling woefully short. But we can do better. Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us. This generation isn't lost yet, and I am here to fight for them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to give voice to frustrated Nebraskans. I rise to testify to the simple truth that a government should not intentionally make life harder for its people. I rise to say: Enough. Enough press conferences. Enough brinkmanship. Enough dividing people of good will against one another. I am still pretty new here, but I can say that in Nebraska and in so many other States across this Nation we actually work together--and not just on small bills but also on the big issues. I urge my colleagues to remember where we came from. While I served in the Nebraska Legislature, we dealt with a major budget shortfall. We didn't go on TV or Twitter or fight; we legislated and we fixed the problem. That is the Nebraska way. We roll up our sleeves, we cut through the talking points, and we get to work. Nebraskans are pragmatic. They are well informed, and they expect results. So when Nebraskans look at the dysfunction we have here in Washington, they are frustrated, and I am too. I am very frustrated. I am frustrated that this Congress can't pass appropriations bills that comply with the law. I am frustrated that this Congress cannot agree on a budget. I am frustrated with crisis management instead of responsible governance. I am frustrated with being told one thing only to learn it is just not true. I am frustrated with the willful ignorance that goes on in Washington when it comes to our debt. And I am frustrated with the lack of solutions. The American people do not want us to just stand in opposition; they want us to put forth constructive ideas to solve problems. As a result of Congress's failure to agree on a spending plan, the government is shut down. The result? Well, in yesterday's Omaha World Herald there was a report that Nebraska farmers are unable to cash checks when they bring their grain in after harvest. The article noted: State law requires elevators to include a lender's name on a check when a farmer has a loan against the grain. With no one at Farm Service Agency offices because of the shutdown, checks can't be cashed when the lender is the FSA. ``We've got millions of dollars of grain checks out there that farmers need,'' said Dan Poppe, president of the Archer (Neb.) Cooperative Credit Union, with locations in Archer, Dannebrog and Central City. He said entire rural economies count on the money. ``It impacts not only our farmers, who are relying heavily on the money, but also the local grocery store, hardware store, the feed and seed,'' Poppe said. It is not just farmers and ranchers, it is also our manufacturers and our investors. A constituent from Waco, NB, wrote: I am a Dow employee living in your district. This impasse is beginning to threaten Dow's investment in new U.S. manufacturing. Not only will a continued delay push back Dow's plans to create thousands of new American jobs, it will harm Dow's competitiveness and directly impact me and my family. Greater economic certainty will help Dow, its employees, and our State thrive. The wife of a Federal law enforcement officer from Gretna wrote: We are a single income family. We have a 2 and 3 year old and one more on the way. I am due in November. This shutdown will leave us unable to pay our bills. A 23-year-old Department of Agriculture employee emailed me saying: My wife works two jobs to help make ends meet, but we still live paycheck to paycheck. If this shutdown is not resolved within the next few days, we will be devastated financially. A U.S. Air Force veteran wrote to tell me: I applied for Social Security disability assistance on the 15th of August and my claim had gone for medical review on the 26th of August. I have no money, and I just found out yesterday that because of the shutdown SSA claims are on hold. A furloughed Federal worker from Omaha called my office to say: We are all tired. We are tired of not getting a budget until the last minute. We are all tired. You guys need to do your job. I agree. I hear these same messages over and over. Nebraskans are tired of the name calling and the blame games. They want to see government work, and they want to see it work well. They are not fooled by the rhetoric, and they expect us to govern responsibly. I agree. That is why I am talking with my colleagues--not publicly in front of the cameras but privately--to see if we can forge a way forward. But I believe we have to do more than just open the government. That is just the basics. We have to address our $17 trillion debt. It is smothering this country, it is jeopardizing our national security, and it is a threat to our children's future. Congress will soon vote on increasing the debt ceiling--the sixth debt limit increase in the past 5 years. Our national debt has almost doubled since 2006, and our debt limit has grown twice as much as our economy in the past 2 years. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Meanwhile, our economy's lethargic recovery continues sluggishly along at a rate of 1 to 2 percent. This is unacceptable. Instead of growing our economy by reducing spending, cutting regulations, and overhauling an outdated tax code, Congress has continued to spend money we just don't have. I didn't run for office to shut down the government. I ran for office to help hard-working Americans get back to work. I ran for this office to stand for middle-class families who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that the government stop holding them down. Nebraskans want to know they can provide for their families, and I don't think that is asking too much. Make no mistake. High public debt depresses economic growth, which in turn dampens job creation. Ironically, our country's debt crisis comes as the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that tax revenues will be at an alltime high--$2.7 trillion in tax revenues. The problem isn't that we have too little revenue, the problem is that we are spending too much. Part of why Nebraskans are frustrated is that our problems are so clear. We know exactly what they are. There is no mystery here. The American people know you can't keep spending twice what you make. They live within a budget--a budget that must balance--and they expect government to do the same. Our government is a long way from a balanced budget, but we can work at a minimum to try to get there. Despite these realities, we are not moving forward. For the past several weeks, Members of Congress, the President, and the press have been participants in a circus. After 9 days, there is still no end in sight. Let me repeat that. After 9 days of a government shutdown, there is still no end in sight. That is not to say there aren't some good ideas out there. Several of my colleagues have offered a number of commonsense proposals that do have broad support. These ideas include repeal of the medical device tax, which was adopted by the Senate as an amendment to its budget resolution by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 20. And this happened in March. Other ideas include a commitment to reducing spending, as required by current law, but we would increase the flexibility for Federal agencies to make smarter cuts. We all agree sequestration is a very clumsy way to cut spending. That is why we need to provide program managers with the ability to determine which programs are wasteful or less efficient. It is a matter of setting priorities so we can make wise decisions. That is the Nebraska way, and that is what we need to do in Washington as well. Senator Collins' sequestration proposal would also allow Congress to continue to exercise oversight on all spending and related cuts. That is important. Even the President has put forth ideas to cut spending by $400 billion over the next 10 years. These offers could give us the framework for a real discussion. Yet we remain at an impasse, unable to move forward. A nation of movers, thinkers, innovators, and entrepreneurs should not be caught in neutral. We should move forward--always forward, and always building a better future. We are the single greatest nation the world has ever known. We have stood as a sentinel of liberty and economic prosperity for over 200 years, yet we find ourselves no longer able to perform even the most basic functions of government. That is not acceptable. Our forefathers, our constituents, and our children and our grandchildren deserve better. I am ready to move forward. I am tired of waiting, and I am willing to work with any of my colleagues to find a reasonable solution. So let's get to work. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the millions of middle-class families across America who feel they have been left behind. Too many of these people are decent, hard-working folks who are unemployed or underemployed. Too many have adult children stuck living at home because, despite graduating from college, they are struggling to find work. And now, because of ObamaCare, these same young adults-- many of whom are older than 26--will be forced to pay more taxes or purchase costly government-defined health insurance. In spite of the administration's best salesmanship, the law remains extremely unpopular. A poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald last fall showed 55 percent of registered voters still favored the full repeal of ObamaCare. Recent national polls indicate a similar disapproval rating for the law all across the country. Part of the reason for the public's continued opposition is the harm that ObamaCare is causing our economy. Let me share a story of one woman, a small business owner named Eileen Marrison. I had the pleasure of meeting Eileen in August when I was traveling my State, and I visited with her in Papillion, NE. The Marrison family owns and operates Two Men and a Truck. Those are franchises in Omaha and Lincoln, NE. They have 30 employees in Lincoln and 76 in Omaha. The Marrisons provide paychecks for local families, and they have earned the respect of their communities. Eileen Marrison, the matriarch of the family, presently offers health insurance to full-time employees--36 individuals working 35 to 45 hours per week. She foots more than half the cost of that coverage. Since ObamaCare changes the definition of a full-time employee, lowering the threshold to 30 hours per week from 40 hours, Eileen now employs 76 full-time equivalents, triggering the employer mandate. Now she must offer affordable coverage as defined by ObamaCare. She has to offer that to all of her employees working 30 hours or more. Eileen has been taking care of her employees for years, and she wants to continue to do so. However, ObamaCare's mandate is now placing additional burdens on this family business which will require Eileen to make tough decisions or incur those harmful costs. I received thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters echoing Eileen's concerns and urging me to repeal all or pieces of the law. Another constituent, a 61-year-old retired schoolteacher from Beatrice, NE, recently wrote me to share that he had just received a letter from his insurance carrier. The news was that premiums were set to spike 60 percent, to $939 a month. That is half of his monthly pension check. He says, ``We are dismayed and disappointed.'' Another Nebraskan, Roger from Hartington, NE, wrote: I just wanted to let you know I got my letter from Blue Cross of Nebraska. My premium went up $160 per month and my total out-of-pocket risk increased from $5,000 to $12,700. Roger continued: On the positive side, my menopausal wife and I now have maternity, drug, alcohol, pediatric, dental, and vision care! President Obama promised our costs would go down and we could keep our insurance if we liked it. I liked my old plan. I want it back! We no longer have to rely on these testimonials to prove that ObamaCare is driving up the price of insurance premiums. Yesterday, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services released its long-awaited report on ObamaCare premium prices offered on the exchanges. The numbers for Nebraska proved that premiums will rise dramatically. In its analysis of the data, Forbes magazine published an article noting there was a 279-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans offered to Nebraska men. For Nebraska women, there was a 227-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans. That is more than triple the current rate. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The average premium for a 27-year-old for the most basic plan, the bronze plan, is $159 before tax credits. Currently, that same 27-year- old can find a premium for $68 in Nebraska. So we are looking at a significant increase in costs. Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the report: ObamaCare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Despite these rates, the plan includes fewer in network doctors and hospitals than current plans. And many of the lowest-cost plans will likely carry high deductibles. One insurer found that ``for the cheapest bronze plans, the average deductible was $5,000.'' How is that possibly affordable? In August the administration announced another major delay, this time to the part of the health care law limiting patients' out-of-pocket expenses. Rather than capping costs for individuals and families, as required by the law, the delay of this key provision guarantees ObamaCare will be anything but affordable. Of course, there are many other problems with the law beyond the increases in premiums, which is why I have been promoting the complete repeal of the law, and I support defunding it. For example, there are serious concerns about possible identity theft for those participating in the new health exchanges. Why? Because the administration failed to independently test the security for its Federal Data Services Hub, which will store huge amounts of people's private, personal information. The report released by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general stated: Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short period of time, such as the final independent testing of the hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities identified during testing, and obtaining the security authorization decision for the hub before opening the exchanges. The administration has until this Tuesday to complete these critical tasks. I, for one, remain skeptical that these tasks will be completed in time, opening up security risks for individuals who do participate in the exchanges. Today the administration tacitly admitted once again that ObamaCare is not ready for prime time when it announced another delay. This time they are postponing online enrollment in some of the small business exchanges scheduled to open on Tuesday. The irony, of course, is that news of this latest delay broke as the President was delivering a speech criticizing Republicans for their effort to defund or delay the law altogether. It seems reasonable to ask: Where is the delay for the American people? Where is the delay for middle-class citizens such as the 61-year-old retired teacher from Beatrice, NE? Is that an extreme position? I certainly don't think so. In short, this law remains fatally flawed. The American people deserve better than selective delays, unfair treatment, and broken promises. For me, the fight over ObamaCare has nothing to do with politics or with ideology. It has to do with standing for small business owners such as Eileen Marrison. It is about standing for middle-class families who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that the government stop holding them down. We are a country that looks to build a brighter future for our people. We are a country that looks to help and lift up people. That is what America is all about. It is about giving voice to millions of Americans--those middle-class families who are feeling left behind--who would rather have the Federal Government focusing on ways to create jobs so they can bring home a decent paycheck. Let me be perfectly clear: I have no intention of standing down in this fight. It is why I was sent here, and it is what Nebraskans expect from me. It is the only way we will ever be able to turn our economy around and build that brighter future for all Americans. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that I am introducing in the U.S. Senate today, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act. As my colleagues may or may not know, the Judgment Fund is administered by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the Federal Government. It is essentially an unlimited amount of money available to pay for Federal Government liability. It is not subject to the annual appropriations process, and even more remarkably, the Treasury Department has no reporting requirements, so these funds are paid out with very little oversight or scrutiny. This is no small matter, as the Judgment Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments per year. In recent years, Treasury has paid the following from the Fund: fiscal year 2012--$2.9 billion, fiscal year 2011--$2.2 billion, fiscal year 2010--$1.1 billion, fiscal year 2009-- $2.3 billion, fiscal year 2008--$790 million, fiscal year 2007--$1 billion, and fiscal year 2006--$628 million. Before the Judgment Fund was established, claims against the government were assigned to a Congressional committee that would appropriate funds in order to pay liability, attorneys' fees, and costs associated with the claim. Once the Judgment Fund was established in 1956, however, Congressional committees stopped appropriating funds explicitly for this purpose. Now, if a government agency does not use its own annual budget to cover the costs, Treasury simply pays the bill out of the Fund. Because the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, few public details exist about where the funds are going and why, and the information that is readily accessible is only made available at the administration's discretion. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted the nature of this problem in an article about the Judgment Fund written by Bill Kovacs on February 1, 2013: Without knowing who is being paid under the Judgment Fund and for what reason, not to mention the validity of the claim, Congress cannot oversee and control the federal governments litigation costs, risks and exposure. Simply, without disclosure Congress is being denied the opportunity to take effective mitigation measures against improper agency action that results in claims against the federal government. Non-disclosure of Judgment Fund payments hides from Congress what might be excessive markers of agency mismanagement and/ or structural defects in statutes and programs. And due to a lack of reporting, Congress is denied the opportunity to understand claims against agencies that might shed light on how to improve agency operations. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has also decried the lack of oversight of the Judgment Fund by stating, ``Certain groups continuously sue the federal government, and Treasury simply writes a check to foot the bill without providing Members of Congress and American taxpayers basic information about the payment.'' The Judgment Fund Transparency Act seeks to address these problems by requiring a public accounting of the taxpayer funds distributed via the Judgment Fund to parties who bring successful claims against the Federal government. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act promotes transparency and oversight by requiring the Treasury Department to post on a publicly accessible website the claimant, counsel, agency, fact summary, and payment amount for each claim from the Judgment Fund, unless a law or court order otherwise prohibits the disclosure of such information. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act would increase transparency and oversight of the Fund and would provide Members of Congress and the public with the ability to see how taxpayers' dollars are being spent. I am proud to introduce the Judgment Fund Transparency Act today and invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that I am introducing in the U.S. Senate today, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act. As my colleagues may or may not know, the Judgment Fund is administered by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the Federal Government. It is essentially an unlimited amount of money available to pay for Federal Government liability. It is not subject to the annual appropriations process, and even more remarkably, the Treasury Department has no reporting requirements, so these funds are paid out with very little oversight or scrutiny. This is no small matter, as the Judgment Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments per year. In recent years, Treasury has paid the following from the Fund: fiscal year 2012--$2.9 billion, fiscal year 2011--$2.2 billion, fiscal year 2010--$1.1 billion, fiscal year 2009-- $2.3 billion, fiscal year 2008--$790 million, fiscal year 2007--$1 billion, and fiscal year 2006--$628 million. Before the Judgment Fund was established, claims against the government were assigned to a Congressional committee that would appropriate funds in order to pay liability, attorneys' fees, and costs associated with the claim. Once the Judgment Fund was established in 1956, however, Congressional committees stopped appropriating funds explicitly for this purpose. Now, if a government agency does not use its own annual budget to cover the costs, Treasury simply pays the bill out of the Fund. Because the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, few public details exist about where the funds are going and why, and the information that is readily accessible is only made available at the administration's discretion. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted the nature of this problem in an article about the Judgment Fund written by Bill Kovacs on February 1, 2013: Without knowing who is being paid under the Judgment Fund and for what reason, not to mention the validity of the claim, Congress cannot oversee and control the federal governments litigation costs, risks and exposure. Simply, without disclosure Congress is being denied the opportunity to take effective mitigation measures against improper agency action that results in claims against the federal government. Non-disclosure of Judgment Fund payments hides from Congress what might be excessive markers of agency mismanagement and/ or structural defects in statutes and programs. And due to a lack of reporting, Congress is denied the opportunity to understand claims against agencies that might shed light on how to improve agency operations. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has also decried the lack of oversight of the Judgment Fund by stating, ``Certain groups continuously sue the federal government, and Treasury simply writes a check to foot the bill without providing Members of Congress and American taxpayers basic information about the payment.'' The Judgment Fund Transparency Act seeks to address these problems by requiring a public accounting of the taxpayer funds distributed via the Judgment Fund to parties who bring successful claims against the Federal government. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act promotes transparency and oversight by requiring the Treasury Department to post on a publicly accessible website the claimant, counsel, agency, fact summary, and payment amount for each claim from the Judgment Fund, unless a law or court order otherwise prohibits the disclosure of such information. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act would increase transparency and oversight of the Fund and would provide Members of Congress and the public with the ability to see how taxpayers' dollars are being spent. I am proud to introduce the Judgment Fund Transparency Act today and invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the following op-ed from POLITICO.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lincoln Highway resolution, which celebrates the centennial of the Nation's first transcontinental highway. In America, our highways are a part of our heritage. They connect people, transport goods, promote tourism, and support economies. I developed an appreciation for our highway heritage at an early age from my father, Jerry Strobel. After returning from service in World War II, he dedicated his career to serving Nebraskans at the State Department of Roads. As a civil servant for 45 years, he worked many years as a deputy state engineer and went on to serve as director and State engineer for the Nebraska Department of Roads from 1987 to 1991. He was a member of the Road and Transportation Builders Association and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Just as I have my father to thank for developing my appreciation of roads and bridges, our vital infrastructure, we as a country have Carl Fisher of Indiana to thank for developing our Nation's first transcontinental highway. A century ago, he conceived and promoted the idea of a highway that would ``stimulate as nothing else could the building of enduring highways everywhere that will not only be a credit to the American people but that will also mean much to American agriculture and American commerce.'' Carl Fisher was an early automobile enthusiast who believed ``the automobile won't get anywhere until it has good roads to run on.'' He was zealous in his pursuit of his dream of a coast-to-coast highway, urging many of his friends in the auto industry to help promote the project. The highway was named for one of Fisher's heroes, President Abraham Lincoln. The first highway to connect our country became the first national memorial to the leader whose courage kept our country connected. The Lincoln Highway route was dedicated in 1913. Spanning from Times Square in New York City to Lincoln Park in San Francisco, the Lincoln Highway--affectionately known as America's Main Street--originally spanned 3,466 miles through 13 States, including the great State of Nebraska. The Lincoln Highway brought economic development, tourism, and adventure to every community it touched and served as one of the inspirations for the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The Lincoln Highway Association will host the official Lincoln Highway 100th Anniversary Tours and Celebration. Two tours will start simultaneously in New York City and San Francisco and meet in Kearney, NE, which is 1,733 miles from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I am proud the Senate can help commemorate the important role that the Lincoln Highway has played in developing our country's highway heritage by celebrating the centennial of our first transcontinental highway.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the current immigration reform legislation and the extremely limited opportunity for Senators to amend this bill. Although I was not a Member of the Senate in 2009, I watched the debate on ObamaCare closely. I was amazed the world's greatest deliberative body could vote on such a massive change to Federal policy without having time to read or adequately amend the bill. Failure to fully comprehend the consequences--intended or otherwise-- left many Americans skeptical, and rightfully so. We were told the need to act justified passage of this massive bill, and we were admonished that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it. The American people were not pitched sound policy, the American people were pitched sound bites. Public polling suggests the American people still haven't bought it, and with good reason. A few years later, Americans are starting to learn the devastating, real-life impact of the flawed health care policy, including the loss of current benefits and the sticker shock of rising premiums. The litany of broken promises seems endless. Yet here we are again, another dire problem in desperate need of a solution, and this time it is immigration. I agree, and Nebraskans agree, we must address the problem of illegal immigration. The status quo is unacceptable. Our border remains dangerously insecure, and 11 million illegal immigrants currently enjoy de facto amnesty. We are told there is only one solution--rather, we are only allowed to vote on one solution that has been agreed upon behind closed doors by the majority leader and a small group of Senators. We are told we have no choice but to pass this bill. The pundits in Washington tell us the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform will leave the Republican Party in an uncertain electoral wilderness. Well, I, for one, am more concerned about the future of this Nation--the future America I will leave to my children and my grandchildren--than I am about any political party's electoral prospects. We are told that simply devoting tens of billions of dollars, with no plan, will solve the problem. We have tried throwing big money at big problems in the past. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Some have suggested there has been plenty of time to read the revised bill. They argue there are only 119 pages of changes that have been added to the 1,200-page legislation before us. But those changes are spread across and throughout the entire language of this bill. There have been little fixes here and there. But if you blink, you might miss an important word that has been dropped or a clause that has been added, and the result is a lasting effect for generations to come. Some of these changes include special carve-outs similar to the cornhusker kickback that helped bring ObamaCare across the finish line. Nebraskans know exactly what I am talking about. These new carve-outs include special treatment for the seafood industry, special treatment for Hollywood, and extensions of the failed stimulus program. I am disappointed the majority leader has once again rushed a bill of this magnitude and impact. It is another artificial deadline imposed by the leader, so members can make it back for some backyard barbecues. That is disappointing. I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee. The only opportunity I and 82 other Members of the Senate have to offer amendments to reform the flawed aspects of this bill is through floor debate. Yet we are being denied that opportunity by the majority leader. So far, we have only voted on nine amendments. Given the emotional, controversial, and complicated nature of this issue, reforms are not made easily. We have a duty to make sure we get it right and that we avoid the mistakes of the past. I have always believed that before we address any form of legislation that deals with legalization for our undocumented population, we must first fully secure the border. Without a fully secure border, the United States will find itself in the same dire straits down the road. Yet the amendment offered by Senators Schumer, Corker, and Hoeven falls short of this very necessary goal. We need a proposal that brings about verifiable, measurable results along the southern border. I support a carefully crafted border security plan that is strategy driven, cost effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of law enforcement officials, and those law enforcement officials have expressed concerns with the legislation before us. The attempt of the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment to reach a compromise on border security metrics has resulted in vague ineffective standards. The border security amendment I filed would provide needed oversight to ensure border security goals are being achieved and maintained in a timely fashion. The border security amendment I filed requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of the Customs and Border Patrol submit a written certification that all border goals have been met. The Homeland Security inspector general must also sign off on certification. And, finally, congressional approval must be obtained. Importantly, the definition of operational control in my amendment would maintain the current law's definition, rather than watering it down. But my amendment hasn't received a vote. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also fails to require a biometric entry and exit system at land, air, and sea ports. Instead, it simply provides a basic electronic screening system--and only at sea and air ports, not land ports of entry. This is absolutely unacceptable--and it is remarkably weaker than the border security provisions in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bills, which required implementation of a biometric entry- exit system. The border security amendment I filed implements a biometric entry- exit system at all points and ports of entry. But my amendment hasn't received a vote. Border security is a question of national security. It is not a position that can be watered down or compromised. The Schumer-Corker- Hoeven amendment does just that. We also need to make sure we are being fiscally responsible. Last time I checked, we are still $17 trillion in debt. Yet this amendment throws $46.3 billion at border security with no plan from the Department of Homeland Security detailing how that money is going to be used. There is no clear justification for the amount detailed in this request. There is absolutely no strategy driving this funding request. There is also not nearly enough accountability. The reporting requirements to Congress are toothless. I reject--and I suspect Nebraskans reject--the idea that massive amounts of spending alone are the solution to our border security problem. In addition to the lack of strategy behind the funding, I am concerned this legislation provides legalization first and border security second. Specifically, this legislation creates a loophole allowing certain people who have overstayed their nonimmigrant visas to obtain a green card without returning home. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also creates a number of loopholes for criminal aliens to remain in our country. Under their proposal the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to waive deportations for certain criminal activity. For example, it would allow many members of criminal gangs to gain entry and the legal right to remain in the country. In a written statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement council president Chris Crane stated: The 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future. It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa overstays which account for almost half of the nation's illegal immigration crisis. The list of problems goes on. In short, this legislation and the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment remains fatally flawed. The American people demand--and they deserve-- better policy. I am committed to working on lasting solutions that will reform our immigration system once and for all. But let me be clear: I will not support legislation simply because it might be vogue or politically expedient or could ingratiate me with the inside-the-Beltway club. I vote for legislation if it is sound policy, if it will improve the lives of hard-working taxpayers, and if it reflects the values of Nebraskans. This legislation has a long way to go.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I would say I believe my statement is correct. It reflects the values of my State, it reflects the values of Americans, and it truly reflects their concerns with this piece of legislation that is before us now.

Mrs. FISCHER. That was in the early 2000s.

Mrs. FISCHER. I have been, at the Texas border.

Mrs. FISCHER. Yes, I will.

Mrs. FISCHER. Of course.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator McCain from Arizona, and I look forward to accepting his invitation to visit his fine State. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about the announcement regarding plans to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent by over one-third. The strategic basis for this reduction is entirely unclear. The President must provide Members of Congress additional information on the basis and the implications of his announcement. General Chilton, then-commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2010. He said the New START treaty gave the United States ``exactly what is needed'' to achieve its national security objectives. Given the assessments of our commanders, I am highly skeptical and gravely concerned about such dramatic reductions in a world of increasing danger and proliferating threats. Regardless of how one feels about these particular force levels, I believe there is broad concern about any unilateral reductions in U.S. nuclear forces. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, after lengthy deliberation and contentious debate, this body ratified the New START treaty which reduced deployed U.S. nuclear weapons from between 2,200 and 1,700 to no more than 1,550. This debate was good for the Nation and produced a bipartisan consensus on arms control and nuclear modernization. Now this administration is calling for reducing U.S. nuclear forces by one- third, and it remains an open question if the Senate will even have a chance to weigh in on this decision. I sure hope we have the opportunity. As Commander in Chief, it is the President's prerogative to adjust nuclear forces. But as Vice President Biden, then serving in this body as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a 2002 letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: With the exception of the SALT I agreement, every significant arms control agreement during the past three decades has been transmitted pursuant to the treaty clause of the Constitution . . . we see no reason whatsoever to alter this practice. Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Hagel also testified before Congress that nuclear reductions, if undertaken at all, should be the product of negotiated, bilateral, verifiable agreements. I believe a change of this magnitude must be reviewed by Congress and such dramatic reductions must only be made in concert with other nuclear powers and the input of our allies. Moreover, I believe it is premature to announce such dramatic reductions when the United States has yet to fulfill its obligations under the New START treaty. Currently, our nuclear force levels exceed the New START limits. Instead of providing a plan to implement the reductions required to comply with that treaty--something I and numerous other Members of Congress have repeatedly asked for--the President opted to promise the world massive additional cuts. I wish to repeat: We don't know how we are going to go from about 1,650 to 1,550 warheads--a reduction of about 100. But instead of answering that question, the President has stated his intention to get rid of another 500 or so warheads. That is one-third of our arsenal. What is more, the President has apparently disregarded the advice of Congress, the bipartisan 2009 Perry-Schlesinger Commission, and his own Nuclear Posture Review that additional nuclear reductions address the dramatic imbalance of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Congress has expressed its view on this subject several times, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 clearly stated the sense of Congress that: If the United States pursues arms control negotiations with the Russian Federation, such negotiations should be aimed at the reduction of Russian deployed and nondeployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons and increased transparency of such weapons. While the announcement mentioned these weapons, their reduction was clearly a separate afterthought, not the primary arms control objective this body insisted it be. In closing, I must remind my colleagues that the Senate approved the New START treaty on the condition of modernizing our aging nuclear deterrent. Although the promise was made before I entered the Senate, it was a promise made to this body and to the American people, and it is a promise I will make sure is kept. Modernization funding is more than 30 percent below the target set by the President during New START's ratification. That is unacceptable. I hope the President will address these issues in the coming days and focus on building a strong bipartisan consensus on these issues and pursuing commonsense objectives. Rushing toward dramatic reduction is a bad policy. It is a bad policy for any President, and it could have grave consequences for our national security. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 1169, a bipartisan amendment that Senator Carper and I offered to the farm bill to fix bureaucratic hurdles that impact farmers' access to seeds. Like so many of the amendments that were offered to this farm bill, our amendment unfortunately was not considered despite broad, bipartisan support and a strong need for the legislation. Legislation is needed to ensure that American farmers continue to have sufficient quantities of seeds each planting season. Every year, seed is produced in South America in the winter and is delivered just- in-time for spring planting in the United States. Due to the historic drought in 2012, it is estimated that 20 percent of U.S. corn seed will be brought in from South America for planting in 2013. All seeds are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, USDA. All imported seed must be accompanied by the appropriate forms required by Customs and Border Protection, CBP and USDA, allowing the U.S. Government to electronically track the shipments. In addition to providing information on the seed and the U.S. destination, if seed is still in a research and development phase, it is imported under a strict permitting program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. As part of its oversight role, USDA also frequently samples and tests incoming seed shipments. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requires a Notice of Arrival, NOA for all pesticides that enter the United States. Recently and without warning, EPA began requiring the same NOA form used for imported chemical pesticides on seed import shipments. These duplicative and unnecessary paperwork requirements imposed by EPA threaten to disrupt vital seed shipments. The NOA is designed for imports of commercial pesticides not seeds, and EPA procedures are antiquated. The form cannot be processed electronically. It must be physically presented to and signed by EPA and then returned to the importer who then gives it to CBP so the shipment can enter. Some 2,000 to 3,000 shipments of counter- seasonally-produced commercial seed arrive 24 hours a day, 7 days a week during the critical period from January to April, but EPA only operates during regular business hours. This volume can quickly overwhelm the NOA process. A delay of even a day can result in delayed deliveries, delayed plantings, and reduced yield for farmers. EPA has never issued any rule or guidance suggesting that seeds containing a pesticide require an NOA to enter the country. However, EPA officials have been enforcing this requirement for commercial seeds containing a pesticide. No seeds should be subjected to these additional paperwork requirements. Our amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA would clarify the roles of EPA and USDA and ensure that unnecessary paperwork does not disrupt an adequate supply of seeds. This language would clarify that the NOA required for the importation of conventional pesticides is not required for imports of treated seed. All seeds would continue to be regulated by USDA under existing statutes and would remain subject to all applicable USDA and CBP entry requirements. EPA's authority to regulate the pesticides themselves would not be affected. This bipartisan legislation was adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, National Farmers Union, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. Senator Carper and I worked with Senator Boxer to make changes to our amendment to address concerns about the scope of the amendment. We are hopeful that when the farm bill is considered in conference, our amendment is adopted.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a number of ongoing controversies of national importance, including the IRS's unfair treatment of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, the secret gathering of journalists' phone records by the Department of Justice, and the administration's response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Both the House and the Senate have held hearings with the former and acting IRS Commissioners, as well as the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration, who conducted an internal audit and authored the report revealing the pattern of government abuse within the IRS tax exempt division. While I am pleased that Congress is judiciously exercising its oversight powers, very few questions have been answered. The pattern of inconsistent explanations continues. We still do not know who exactly initiated the practice of wrongfully targeting conservative groups. Ironically, the Acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, testified under oath that there was absolutely no political motivation behind the practice; however, Mr. Miller could not identify the names of the individuals whose motives he was supposedly vouching for. How is that even possible? Nebraskans know better than to buy that bill of goods. We still do not know why this abusive policy was implemented in the first place. IRS officials have maintained that the extra scrutiny given to conservative groups was an attempt to deal with an influx of applications. As a number of fact checkers and media outlets have noted, that surge in applications did not happen until well after the targeting began. The reasoning for the practice put forth by the IRS simply does not align with the facts. We still do not know why the IRS believed it had the right to release confidential data which it had wrongly requested in the first place. They released that to third parties with adversarial interests to those conservative groups in question. The progressive publication ProPublica admitted it obtained from the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential tax forms from nine organizations. All of the groups whose records were improperly released were conservative. Why did the IRS leak these records? What was their goal? Why did only conservative organizations have their confidential information leaked? Why did the White House senior staff, including the White House Counsel and the White House Chief of Staff, fail to inform the President of this egregious government overreach by the IRS? Former Special Counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Hill: With all due respect to someone who has impeccable legal credentials, if she did have such foreknowledge and didn't inform the President immediately, I respectfully suggest Ms. Ruemmler is in the wrong job and that she should resign. Politico recently reported--the story keeps changing: The White House explanation of what it knew about the IRS story ahead of the first press reports on the controversy shifted once again Thursday. Let me repeat that, ``shifted once again.'' It seems that some folks from the White House cannot get their facts straight. Why? The White House Press Secretary admitted yesterday that officials in the White House discussed how and when the IRS would tell the public the agency had been targeting conservative groups. The eventual public disclosure was made by IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Director Lois Lerner, who revealed the pattern of government abuse with an intentionally planted question at an otherwise little-noticed Washington, DC, lawyers conference. It is outrageous that despite numerous congressional inquiries asking the IRS for answers in both public hearings and formal letters, the IRS would first reveal the truth through a charade of a ``planted'' question. Then Lerner went on to earn herself a ``bushel of Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post fact checker for her series of misstatements and ``weasley wording.'' Whatever happened to the President's worthy goals of promoting the most accountable, the most transparent, the most open administration in history? I do not appreciate being misled, and Nebraskans do not either. Regarding the secret collection of the Department of Justice of over 100 Associated Press journalist phone records, two key questions remain. Why didn't the Department of Justice ask the Associated Press to voluntarily cooperate before issuing those subpoenas as the law requires? And why did the Department of Justice fail to abide by the law and inform the Associated Press that the records were subpoenaed, denying them the opportunity to appeal that heavy-handed play? Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson put it well: The Obama administration has no business rummaging through journalists' phone records, perusing their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn't chilling, it's just plain cold. But, once again, the overreach does not stop there. Recent news has surfaced that a Fox News journalist was criminally investigated for doing his job, lawfully soliciting information from a government source. The Post describes the investigation in vivid detail. They used security badge access records to track the reporter's comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter's personal e-mails. This assault on the First Amendment is unacceptable and the intimidation of reporters through unnecessary criminal investigations and excessive surveillance raises serious questions about the freedom of the press. The President and the Department of Justice have yet to come forward with credible answers. The American people are still waiting. Finally, I would like to briefly touch on the tragic attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Much attention has been paid to the internal White House e-mails and changes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points explaining the source of the attacks. I believe a key question still remains to be answered: Why for 2 weeks did the administration propagate the tale that it was a YouTube video-inspired attack when officials knew almost immediately it was carried out by affiliates of al-Qaida? That is a pretty simple question. Why were the American people told an anti-Islam YouTube video prompted the attacks when it was known it was not? No one has answered this very basic question. Instead of providing answers to these questions, a top White House adviser has impugned the integrity of those seeking the truth by decrying persistent questioning as a ``witch hunt.'' It is time for the President to put politics aside, demand accountability from his staff, and step up and do his job. Congress is doing its part by conducting serious oversight hearings on both the IRS overreach and the Benghazi attack. Yet critical government witnesses--such as the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Director Lois Lerner--refuse to cooperate, insisting on pleading the Fifth Amendment during hearings to set the record straight. It is up to the President. It is up to the President to transform this culture of arrogance and change the above-the-law attitude that seems to have a grip over his departments and agencies. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not going to cut it anymore. We simply cannot afford to have a President on the sidelines. This unraveling saga of government gone wild demonstrates exactly one of two things: either the height of government incompetence or gross abuse of power. Rather than sending surrogates out on the Sunday talk shows to claim ``the law is irrelevant'' with regard to that IRS overreach, I call on the President to work with Congress to build back the people's trust. This includes taking responsibility for the actions of those working within the executive branch, enforcing the laws, and removing all those responsible for this disturbing pattern of government overreach. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA. I would like to focus on Senate Amendment No. 801, a bipartisan provision to provide regulatory relief to our country's farmers and ranchers. Senate Amendment No. 801 is based on S. 496, the Farmers Undertake Environmental Stewardship Act, FUELS Act. The FUELS Act was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor and has 10 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle including Senators John Boozman, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Heidi Heitkamp, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Mary Landrieu, and myself. It was referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, of which I am a member. I filed the FUELS Act as an amendment to WRDA when it was considered earlier this year by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. The amendment was not considered at that time. The House version of the FUELS Act, H.R. 311, was introduced by Congressman Rick Crawford and has 69 cosponsors. In the 112th Congress, the FUELS Act, H.R. 3158, was reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and passed the House by voice vote. The House Committee Report for H.R. 3158 (Report 112-643) provides background and discusses the need for legislation: The EPA mandated Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program, or SPCC, requires that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 1,320 gallons must make infrastructure improvements to reduce the possibility of oil spills. The regulations require farmers to construct a containment facility, like a dike or a basin, which must retain 110 percent of the fuel in the container. These mandated infrastructure improvements--along with the necessary inspection and certification by a specially licensed Professional Engineer will cost many farmers tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes compliance costs reach higher than $60,000. The SPCC program dates back to 1973, shortly after the Clean Water Act was signed into law. In the last decade, it has been rigorously applied to agriculture lands, and has been amended, delayed, and extended dozens of times. The Obama administration updated the rule in 2009 to expand regulation under the SPCC program--applying it to nearly all farms, and lifting a 2006 rule that suspended compliance requirements for small farms with oil storage of 10,000 gallons or less. It applied to crop oil, vegetable oil, animal fat, and even milk. Further revisions came during April of 2011 when the EPA decided to exempt milk. The 2009 rule--minus regulating milk spills was scheduled to go into effect in November 2011. A few weeks before the November deadline, EPA issued a statement saying they would not begin enforcement until May of 2013. While enforcement has been delayed until 2013, the underlying regulation has not been fixed. The FUELS Act requires that EPA revise the SPCC regulations to be reflective of a producer's spill risk and financial resources. The exemption level would be adjusted upward from 1,320 gallons of oil storage to an amount that would protect small farms: 10,000 gallons. The proposal would also place a greater degree of responsibility on farmers and ranchers to self-certify compliance if their oil storage facilities exceed the exemption level. If the amount exceeds 42,000 gallons, a professional engineer must certify the SPCC plans for a farm. The bill provides another layer of protection by requiring the producer to be able to demonstrate that he or she has no history of oil spills, or to fully comply with the SPCC regulations. The University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture did a study that concluded that, for the entire country, H.R. 3158 would save farmers and ranchers up to $3.36 billion. Agricultural production is an energy-intensive endeavor. Farmers need fuel to power machinery, equipment, and irrigation pumps. Because these operations are in rural areas where regular access to fuel supplies is limited, producers rely upon on-farm fuel storage capacity to provide the supply we need at the times we need it. My family operates a cattle ranch in the Nebraska Sandhills, so I can tell you firsthand that farmers and ranchers take great pride in the work we do. Our success is the direct result of careful stewardship of our natural resources, which we depend upon for our livelihoods. In agriculture, we know the value of clean water, and we work hard to protect the quality of our streams and aquifers. When it comes to preventing spills from our on-farm fuel storage, farmers already have every incentive to do so--not the least of which is the high cost of diesel and gasoline. I receive calls and letters every day from Nebraska farmers concerned about the compliance challenges associated with the SPCC rule for on- farm fuel storage, a regulation originally designed for oil refineries. Allow me to share a portion of one such constituent email I recently received on this issue: We just became aware of this regulation yesterday through an email from Farm Bureau. Since we have a large quantity of on-farm storage capacity, we are not able to self-certify and must hire a professional engineer to create a plan. In order to find a qualified engineer, I first called the EPA, who then told me to call the Region 7 office out of Kansas City, who then told me to call the Nebraska Board of Engineers, who then told me to call the Nebraska Society of Professional Engineers, but the number on their website is no longer in service. When I asked the gentleman from the Nebraska Board of Engineers how much it would cost, he said anywhere from $1500-$4800, depending on the complexity and the engineer's ability to charge more due to high demand due to the approaching deadline. When I asked the gentleman from the EPA Region 7 office why we hadn't heard about it before now, he said the ruling was in place for a long time but they haven't done a good job of getting the word out. When I shared these frustrations with Gina McCarthy, the nominee for EPA Administrator, she acknowledged at her nomination hearing on April 11, 2013, that ``the agency has bridges to build with the agriculture community.'' The fact is that good stewardship on farms and ranches and environmental improvements are achieved because of producers' application of new technology, best practices, and conservation measures. Centralized management and mandates are all too often arbitrary, ineffectual, or even counterproductive, lacking the insight of local stakeholders. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the stakeholder groups on this issue that illustrates this point, July 25, 2012 letter to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This letter from national agriculture groups-- including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Milk Producers Federation, National Turkey Federation, and USA Rice Federation explains the arbitrary nature of the current regulation: ``EPA's unusual threshold number of 1,320 gallons has no basis in science or in normal tank sizes for agriculture.'' WRDA will require EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to conduct a study to determine the appropriate exemption level ``to not more than 6,000 gallons and not less than 2,500 gallons, based on a significant risk of discharge to water.'' The intent of this provision is to ensure that EPA is not unnecessarily regulating on-farm fuel storage at capacities that do not pose a significant risk to harming water quality. If there is not a significant risk, then regulation is not justified. Compliance costs should not be imposed where there is not a significant risk. A March 2005 USDA report, Fuel/Oil Storage for Farmers and Cooperatives, states, ``The SPCC rule will have a substantial cost of compliance for the nation's farmers. A total compliance cost of almost $4.5 billion is projected. There is very little evidence of fuel/oil spill by farms.'' The report goes on to state that ``the 1,320 gallons aggregated storage trigger is not supported by the survey data. Compliance at this level not only ignores the physical layouts of farm fuel storage but it also imposes a broad and extreme impact on the majority of farms. Nearly 70 percent of all farms would have to comply, at an average aggregated tank cost of $9,215 and a total compliance cost of $4.5 billion.'' I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record other letters of support for the FUELS Act from agricultural stakeholders, including letters from the American Farm Bureau Federation, USA Rice, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, National Cotton Council, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, NCFC. This quote from the NCFC letter illustrates the points I have made, further explains the need for the legislation, and emphasizes the importance of the EPA-USDA study in ensuring that we are not unnecessarily regulating capacity levels at which no significant risk of oil spills has been demonstrated. Without question the members of the agricultural sector who grow the nation's food and rely on surface and well water to meet their families' and agricultural operations' needs are highly motivated to ensure that their environmental practices are sound. These producers work daily to ensure a safe environment for their children and the communities in which they live. As such, they can and do take very seriously their responsibility, consistent with the intent and spirit of the SPCC provisions, to properly manage the oil resources used on their operations. Row crop farms, ranches, livestock operations, farmer cooperatives and other agribusinesses pose low risks for spills and are often seasonal in nature. In fact, data on oil spill on farms, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses is almost nonexistent. The Agency has failed to provide data or even anecdotal evidence of agricultural spills to justify such a resource-intensive rulemaking for America's farmers and ranchers. The risk of such spills from agriculture is extremely low and there is little to no evidence that providing greater flexibility through S. 496 will harm the environment. The Senate's approval of WRDA will be a huge victory for farmers throughout Nebraska and across America, who should not face unnecessary regulations. The bipartisan provision regarding on-farm fuel storage raises the exemption levels for fuel storage capacity to better reflect the spill risk and financial resources of farms. I appreciate my colleagues' support and cooperation on this issue.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to speak out against the alarming reports that have recently surfaced by the IRS and the Department of Justice. As the Federal agency tasked with administering the U.S. Tax Code, the IRS has an extraordinary influence on the lives of all Americans, from all walks of life and all points of view. As citizens we 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, in recent days we have learned our expectations are far adrift from reality. Last week the Internal Revenue Service acknowledged a history of targeting conservative politically active groups during their process of seeking tax-exempt status. This practice first involved flagging groups concerned about government spending and debt. Ironically, such targeting comes at a time when poll after poll indicates the Federal Government's out-of-control spending and our $17 trillion debt are top concerns for all Americans. I can tell my colleagues from my experience it is the top concern for Nebraskans. Despite these legitimate concerns and the patriotic desire of Americans to effect change in government, the IRS worked to impede these organizations with one of the bluntest instruments of government: regulatory abuse. The IRS demanded inordinate amounts of documents from these groups, including donor lists, which served to unfairly delay the tax-exempt certification of these well-intentioned groups. This news is alarming on multiple fronts. First and foremost, it is unacceptable that the IRS would blatantly target any of our fellow citizens, let alone groups of Americans whose views are at odds with their own. As the Washington Post noted in today's lead editorial: ``Any unequal application of the law based on ideological viewpoint is unpardonable--toxic to the legitimacy of the government's vast law enforcement authority.'' I couldn't agree more. These activist groups were simply trying to exercise their First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and free speech--the cornerstone of our democracy. Yet their reward for expressing concern about the direction our country is going was to be singled out in an attempt to prevent them from fully engaging in the democratic process. It has been reported that the targeting of these Americans--and muffling of their voices on the pressing issues facing our country-- began in 2010. What has happened since then? The passage of very consequential pieces of legislation, including ObamaCare and the Dodd- Frank Financial Reform Act, multiple debates on how to address our Nation's dire fiscal situation, two national elections, including last fall's Presidential election. As alarming as the actions of the IRS are, I am even more troubled by the IRS trying to hide these actions. When an IRS official last week finally acknowledged and apologized for the targeting of conservative groups, it was more than 3 years after the practice is said to have begun. It was more than 1 year after the current Acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, is reported to have become aware of the targeting, but it doesn't stop with Mr. Miller. As the Washington Post noted: ``Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS's tax-exempt organization office, knew about the targeting in 2011; she seemed to say Friday that she learned about it from news reports last year.'' These were not the malicious actions of a rogue agent or simply another example of government incompetence; instead, this was a clear, methodical abuse of government power to discriminate against whole groups of Americans simply because of their political beliefs. Despite their awareness of abuse, officials from the IRS failed time after time to disclose this targeting and little effort was made to end the practice. Even as recently as their admissions on Friday, the IRS continued to engage in coverups and half-truths. In fact, IRS officials seem to go out of their way to deny wrongdoing. In testimony last year before the House of Representatives, then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said there was ``absolutely no targeting.'' After years of neglecting to inform Congress of this practice, the long overdue admission was the result of diligent lawmakers exercising oversight along with a soon-to-be released report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The time for muted outrage and limp apologies has passed. The American people deserve nothing less than absolute assurance that this practice will not happen again. Those who are responsible must be held accountable and removed from their positions. The policies that enabled this gross abuse of power must be changed immediately. It is also worth noting the IRS is one of the lead Federal agencies in charge of implementing ObamaCare. It does not appear the IRS is in any condition to implement this highly controversial law, particularly as public trust in this agency continues to plummet. Just yesterday we learned of another breach of public trust and another potential violation of our First Amendment freedom--the freedom of the press. Press reports indicate the Department of Justice secretly obtained extensive telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press in what the head of the news organization called a ``massive and unprecedented intrusion'' into how news organizations gather the news. According to the Associated Press's legal counsel, the records obtained included those from reporters working out of the House of Representatives press gallery. While it is unclear at this point how many reporters were targeted and why, the effect of this data gathering is clear: intimidation of the press and suppression of free speech. This is unacceptable. A free and unfettered press is vital to any democracy. Moreover, the scope of this information gathering is simply beyond the pale--and likely beyond precedent. The Attorney General and the President owe the American people answers, and they owe them now. These recent abuses of power by both the IRS and the Department of Justice are just the latest episodes of this executive branch's disturbing pattern of overstepping its lawful powers. We have seen this in the President's unconstitutional recess appointments. We have seen this in the EPA's disclosure of classified information of cattlemen to activist environmental groups. We have seen this in a lack of forthrightness with our government's response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The result of this methodical government overreach has a powerful chilling effect on citizens. There is no place for that in a democracy. There is no place for that in the United States. The American people deserve a government that jealously guards the liberties of its citizens, not a government that tramples on our basic constitutional rights. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.